The President Must Be More Than a “Stump Speaker”

    This is the season for “stump speeches.”

    The term “Stump speech” refers to the often raucous speech delivered by a politician

running for office. The term came into usage in the 19th century, when such speeches were

often made by the candidates as he on a stood tree stumps to allow himself to be seen and

heard, in an era before the voice could be amplified electronically. 



    The Historians, Morison and Commanger, in The Growth of the American
Republic, v. 1,  wrote of President Lincoln’s successor, President Andrew  Johnson, as follows:

    “In the 1866 campaigning Republicans brandished reports of such atrocities

    to warn that the South was robbing  [the people of the North] of their hard-

    won victory at war. ... Johnson [advocating Lincoln’s policy of tolerant

    Reconstruction] warned of the consequences of the Republican policy [of

    “Radical Reconstruction’]; “Southerners, he said, ‘cannot be treated as

    subjugated people or vassal colonies, without  a germ of hatred being introduced,

    which will some day or other though the time may be distant, develop into

    mischief of the most serious character.’ ”


    Morison and Commanger then wrote something that has stuck with me since

the day I read it at Notre Dame.

    “Johnson proved to be an inept campaigner. He seemed incapable of

    advocating a policy of tolerance in a tolerant manner, and his ... stumping

    tour of the Middle West, became in many an exercise in vituperation.

    “I would ask you ,” the President shouted on 3 September 1866 in

    Cleveland, “Why not hang Thad Stevens and Wendell Phillips?” [Radical

    Republican leaders].” Johnson was, said [Secretary of State] Seward, the

    “best stump speaker in the country,” but as Secretary [of the Navy] Wells

    shrewdly remarked, “the President should not be a stump speaker.””


    So what is legitimate in a “stump speech” delivered by candidate for the office of

the Presidency? At what point does a presidential candidate demean himself and the

office he is seeking? At what point does the candidate appear “un-presidential?”


    Many Americans decry “negative campaigning.” But there are two very distinct

varieties of “negative campaigning,” and the line between them, is a very bright line. So,

is it wrong to paint your opponent as “un-Presidential?” “Dishonest?” “Stupid?” “Ineffective?”

Is it wrong to label his policies or his positions as “ineffective?” “Wasteful?” “Cronyism?”

“Marxist?” “Predatory Capitalism?”

   
    The answer is simple. If the allegations are truthful, then “going negative” serves a

legitimate public purpose. If the candidate is a tax cheat, a philander, a communist flying

under false colors, or a thief, the public needs to be told. If the allegations are baseless,

the “negative campaigning” becomes a lie and it is impermissible.


    The First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution guarantees free speech, and it guarantees

first and foremost political speech. If the voters are to intelligently select the best candidates,

and vote correctly on the issues, nothing is more important than that the candidates and their

supporters tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.


    In 21st century America the issues are complex. Candidates like Ronald Reagan and

Bill Clinton has a way of making the hard stuff understandable to the voters. When a candidate

tells the truth and makes the hard stuff understandable, he does the voters a great service. If he

lies or indulges in half-truths, he obfuscates the issues, confuses the voters and undermines the

proper workings of democracy.


    My mother despised liar. She frequently told me that if you tell one lie, you will have

to tell another and another to cover it up.


    I am not so naive as to believe a President must always tell the truth. In war-time, no

president in his right mind would tell the enemy our battle plans. But in matters of domestic

politics - such as, which plan is best calculated to save Medicare and/or Social Security - there is

no reason to lie, unless the candidate is putting party over country. But any candidate,

Republican or Democrat, that does that is unworthy of high office and public trust. Indeed,

why would any reasonable voter trust a liar? Why would a Republican trust a Republican liar?

Why would a Democrat trust a Democrat liar?


    What I am suggesting is that there is no way to fix the present mess if the American

people continue to put people in high office who don’t tell the truth. I want a President who

puts forth a coherent plan, and who means what he says and says what he means.  If we continue

to elect politicians who continue to “bribe us” with government largess to get our votes,

we will go the way of Europe. We will not have to have a candidate “push us off a cliff;” we

will eventually walk off under our own power in pursuit of the next handout.

Copyright 2012

 John Donald O'Shea
   


   


   

   

Reducing the Deficit: Government Jobs vs. Private Sector Jobs

President Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney have two very different visions of how the U. S. government should "raise the revenues" it needs to pay the nation's debts, and to provide for the common defense and the general welfare.

Assume for a minute

-- a. That the U.S. government needed revenues in the sum of $2,000 to do all of the above,

-- b. That there were only two American citizens,

-- c. That the "First Citizen" has a salary of $5,000 and pays $1,000 in federal income tax, and

-- d. That the "Second Citizen" is unemployed, has no income and pays no federal income tax.

I use this simple "two citizen" example for ease of understanding because nearly half of the American people (47 percent ) presently pay no federal income tax while the other half (53 percent) do.

So, assuming the government needs $2,000 in revenues to meet its needs. What are the government's options? There are only four:

-- Run the printing presses, and print more money;

-- Reduce government expenses to $1,000;

-- Raise taxes on First Citizen from $1,000 to $2,000;

-- Create a job for Second Citizen that pays him $5,000, and have him pay the same $1,000 in taxes that is already being paid by First Citizen.

Neither the Mr. Obama nor Mr. Romney advocates "running the printing presses." That may be implied in their policies, but neither would dare overtly advocate it. To do so they would also have to espouse "inflation" which always follows "running the presses."

As to "reducing government expenses," the record of the "$1 trillion-plus (!) deficits for the last four years demonstrates that President Obama is less likely to "cut government spending" than the Cubs are to win the pennant.

Mr. Romney may cut some spending, but he is candid enough not to tell the voters that he can eliminate the deficit simply by cutting expenses.

As to the third alternative, "raising taxes on the rich (about 3 percent)," President Obama tells America that this is his plan to eliminate the deficit. Gov. Romney says he will lower federal income tax rates for middle class and wealthy Americans, but eliminate deductions for richer Americans. But the governor states that his tax reforms will be "revenue neutral."

Gov. Romney's honestly admits his tax revision plan will not eliminate the deficit. The president's claim that that he can eliminate deficit by taxing the rich and extra 3 percent is utter nonsense. You can run the numbers yourself.

If the deficit is to be eliminated, it will have to be eliminated by creating good paying jobs, and by getting those who are presently not paying income taxes onto the federal tax rolls.

President Obama's solution seems to be to create more "government" jobs by hiring more teachers, more policeman and more government workers. If you hire a teacher and pay that teacher $50,000 a year, and if he then pays $10,000 a year in federal income tax, you have spent $50,000 in federal revenues (tax dollars) for a return of $10,000! You are merely redistributing tax dollars taken from First Citizens and giving them to the Second Citizens.

This is what Mr. Romney describes as Mr. Obama's plan "Government trickle-down economics." (This does not mean that teachers and policemen are not "necessary;" but it does mean that tax dollars are spent to hire them.)

Gov. Romney's solution is to let the private sector to create the new "good paying" jobs. One example of how he would do it, is seen in his energy policy. He would drill for more gas and oil, and dig for more coal. Under Mr. Romney's plan, the wages of the people who drill for gas and oil, and dig for coal wouldn't be paid by the American taxpayer. They would be paid by private industry. If the oil worker was paid a salary of $50,000, it would come from his employer, without cost to the government. But that individual would still pay $10,000 in federal income tax.

Under Mr. Obama's "government" employment plan, the government loses $40,000. ($50,000 to pay salary generating $10,000 in taxes). Under Mr. Romney's Plan the government has a net gain of $10,000 (no government salary generating $10,000 in taxes.)

If 50 percent of the American people pay $1 trillion in taxes, the goal should be to get 100 percent of the American people paying $2 trillion -- without cost to the government!

Posted Online: :   Oct. 09, 2012, 2:46 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Why Should Israel Be Worried?

Israel is a very small nation of about 8,000 square miles. It is 263 miles long, and 9-7 miles wide. It could fit into Florida eight times.

On Aug. 15, according to a report from the respected Middle East Media Research Institute, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated, "As the morning star once rose on the Islamic Revolution's victory (in Iran) ... it will again rise, (this time,) on the cause of Palestine, and this Islamic land will undoubtedly be restored to the Palestinian nation, (while) the superfluous, mendacious and false Zionist (regime) will be eradicated from the geographical landscape..."

During the first eight months of 2012, Iranian proxies have fired some 353 rockets into Israel -- rockets supplied by Iran. So, if you live in Israel, can you risk allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons?

Until recently, the United States has had a "special relationship" with Israel. Indeed, the 2008 Democrat Platform said exactly that.

"Our starting point (for our Middle East Policy) must always be our special relationship with Israel, grounded in shared interests and shared values, and a clear, strong, fundamental commitment to the security of Israel, our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

In furtherance of the U. S. "commitment to the security of Israel," the 2008 platform went on to say, "The United States and its ... partners should continue to isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel's right to exist, and abides by past agreements."

The platform also recognized that, if Israel was to be a defensible nation, it was unrealistic to require thatIsrael give all land that it had won at war since 1949. "All understand that it is unrealistic to expect the outcome of final status negotiations to be a full and complete return (by Israel) to the armistice lines of 1949."

Finally, the platform stated, "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

Compare that with the 2012 Democrat Platform, as originally adopted.

" President Obama and the Democratic Party maintain an unshakable commitment to Israel's security.

"For this reason, despite budgetary constraints, the President has worked with Congress to increase security assistance to Israel every single year since taking office, providing nearly $10 billion in the past three years.

"The administration has also worked to ensure Israel's qualitative military edge in the region.

"And we have deepened defense cooperation -- including funding the Iron Dome system -- to help Israel address its most pressing threats, including the growing danger posed by rockets and missiles emanating from the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran.

"The President's consistent support for Israel's right to defend itself and his steadfast opposition to any attempt to delegitimize Israel on the world stage are further evidence of our enduring commitment to Israel's security.

"It is precisely because of this commitment that President Obama and the Democratic Party seek peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

"A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel's identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

"At the same time, the President has made clear that there will be no lasting peace unless Israel's security concerns are met. President Obama will continue to press Arab states to reach out to Israel.

"We will continue to support Israel's peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, which have been pillars of peace and stability in the region for many years.

"And even as the President and the Democratic Party continue to encourage all parties to be resolute in the pursuit of peace, we will insist that any Palestinian partner must recognize Israel's right to exist, reject violence, and adhere to existing agreements."

If you are the Israeli prime minister, why would you be nervous? Clearly, the 2012 Democrat platform didn't unequivocally throw Israel under the bus, but equally clearly, there were four unequivocal assurances that were deleted, which could not have been reassuring:

-- The "special relationship."

-- America's promise to "isolate Hamas until it renounces terrorism."

-- Support for not returning to "1949 borders," and

-- The plank about "Jerusalem being the capital of Israel."

(That latter provision was voted back in by a "floor vote" at the 2012 convention, where notwithstanding the ruling of the chair, it sounded like delegates voted against putting it back in. )

So, why would the Israeli prime minister want a face-to-face meeting with the U.S. President? Why would he want the U. S. to draw a a "red line" or a "line in the sand" saying to the Iranians that it mean war with the U. S. for Iran to cross that nuclear line?

And of course, what does it look like to Israel when the U.S. pulls out of Iraq and allows Iraq to come unraveled? When the American president announces a "deadline" for America to leave Afghanistan? When we stands idle as the Syrian dictator murders his own people? When America "leads from the rear" in Libya? And when the America apologizes for a YouTube video while its ambassador is murdered, and its embassies are demolished all over the Muslim world? If we can't protect our own embassies, why would the Israelis believe we will protect them?

Given that, if you were Israel, would you strike Iran while you still had the chance -- before Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, which in the words of the "Supreme Leader" would enable Iran to "eradicate Israel"?

Posted Online: :   Sept. 25, 2012, 1:38 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Are You Really Better Off? Crunch the Numbers Yourself

Candidates in both parties are asking, "Are you financially better off now than you were four years ago?" What do you think? Are you?

Here are a few statistics.

-- The number of persons said to be living in poverty in January 2009 was 39.8 million. Today that number is 43.6 million.

-- The August jobs report released Sept. 7 revealed that 368,000 Americans simply gave up looking for work. That number was nearly four times larger than the 96,000 people who actually found jobs. The government also reported that the "labor force participation rate" fell to 63.5 percent — the lowest figure since September of 1981.

-- In January 2009, the national debt was $10.627 trillion. Today it is over $16 trillion. There are about 300 million Americans. Therefore, your share of the national debt in January 2009 was roughly $35,000. Today, it is roughly $53,000. But there are problems with these numbers.

First, they are impersonal. They are huge numbers, but unless you are living in poverty, or unemployed, they are just numbers to you.

Second, while they are government statistics, we hesitate to rely on them because, in the words of a great 19th-century British statesman, "figures lie, and liars figure." For you, therefore, to accurately answer the question, "Are you better off?" I think it is better to look at the more immediate things that affect your daily life.

I have formulated a series of questions, which should make it very clear whether you were better off in January 2009 than you are now.

-- What was your salary in January 2009? What is it now? What was the percentage increase (or decrease)?

-- If you are on pension, what was your monthly pension benefit in January 2009? What is it now?

-- If you are on a pension, was the Legislature or your employer looking for a way to reduce your pension in January 2009? Is it now?

-- What was your health insurance situation in January 2009? Have you lost health insurance? Has your employer reduced the share he or she paid? Increased the share you pay? If you're a state employee or retiree, is the Legislature requiring you to pay more or is it about to?

-- What was the value of your home in January 2009? What is it today? Are you current on your mortgage, or underwater?

-- Has the cost of schooling your children increased? College? Grad school?

-- Are you paying state income tax today at a rate in effect in January 2009? Or has the Legislature increased it?

-- Has your municipality increased sewer rates? Water rates?

-- Are you paying the same real estate tax you were paying in January 2009?

-- Do you have cable? Are you paying the same monthly amount you were in January 2009?

-- The average price of gasoline in January 2009 was $1.83 per gallon. What are you paying today?

-- When you go to the grocery store, are you paying more or less? Here are a few of my comparisons from my receipts:

16 oz. peanut butter (4/5/09) -- $1.47; 28 oz. peanut butter summer 2012, $4.

16 oz. strawberries (4/5/09) -- $1.77. 32 oz strawberries summer 2012 --$4.99.

1 gallon skim milk (8/15/09) -- $1.79. Summer of 2012 -- $2.99.

18 oz. Oreo Cookies (4/5/09) -- $2. 16.6 oz Oreo Cookies Summer 2012 -- $2.49

2 qt. Breyers Ice Cream (4/5/09) -- $2.50. 1.5 qt. Breyers Ice Cream Summer of 2012 -- $3.

You should be able to calculate whether you income has increased more than your expenses, or vice-versa.

If your income has increased more than your expenses, you should be in better shape financially. If not, you are probably in worse shape.

It looks to me like things are going from bad to worse. And, with the present administration, I see no meaningful plan to make things better.

The president's plan would raise taxes. Those paying a marginal tax rate of 36 percent would see their rate increase to 39.6 percent. The Heritage Foundation reports that in 2011 the federal income tax on individuals raised $1,091,500,000,000.

But for ease of understanding, assume that every taxpayer's federal income tax was raised by 3.6 percent on all income (which clearly won't be the case!). That would raise a tad less than $40 billion per year.

But when you consider that the White House's Office of Management and Budget projects that the 2012 deficit will be, $1.33 trillion, you're talking about less than 4 percent of that figure -- a drop in the bucket!

It is for that reason that I give the president's plan to tax the "rich" an extra 3.6 percent a vote of no confidence.

The simple truth is this, 50 percent of the American people paid $1.091 trillion in income tax during 2011. If each of them paid 100 percent more (rather than 3.6 percent more), it would raise an additional $1.091 trillion -- not enough to cover the projected 2012 deficit of $1.33 trillion. The president's plan is nonsense.

It's good class warfare and good politics, but the numbers simply don't work.

Posted Online: :  Sept. 19, 2012, 2:16 pm  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Hope and Change Is a Soundbite, Not Serious Policy

"The very last thing we ought to do is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans." -- Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Chairman, Democratic National Committee

The 2012 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Medicare Trust Funds should be mandatory reading for any American planning to vote in November. It is not a partisan document.

Three of the six trustees are prominent Democrats and members of the Obama administration: Timothy F. Geithner, Treasury secretary, Hilda L. Solis, Labor Secretary and Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services secretary.

The Medicare program has two components:

Hospital Insurance (HI), otherwise known as Medicare Part A, helps pay for hospital, home health, skilled nursing facility, and hospice care for the aged and disabled.

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) consists of Medicare Part B and Part D. Part B helps pay for physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled who have voluntarily enrolled.

Part D provides subsidized access to drug insurance coverage on a voluntary basis for all beneficiaries and premium and cost-sharing subsidies for low-income enrollees.

(Medicare also has a Part C, which serves as an alternative to traditional Part A and Part B coverage. Under this option, beneficiaries can choose to enroll in and receive care from private "Medicare Advantage" and certain other health insurance plans that contract with Medicare. These plans receive prospective, capitated payments for such beneficiaries from the HI and SMI Part B trust fund accounts.)

So, what shape is Medicare in? According to the Medicare Trustees, "The estimated exhaustion date for the HI trust fund (Part A) remains at 2024 .... As in past years, the Trustees have determined that the fund is not adequately financed over the next 10 years."

Things are not as gloomy for the SMI component. "The SMI trust fund is adequately financed over the next 10 years and beyond because premium and general revenue income for Parts B and D are reset each year to match expected costs."

But if Medicare Part A fund is estimated to be "exhausted" in 2024, what will seniors do in 2024? If the fund is "exhausted" it isn't going to be there to pay for "physician, outpatient hospital, home health, and other services for the aged and disabled." Such payments as are made, will be reduced, and paid only from current revenues.

If the Medicare Part A fund will be "exhausted" in 2024, the head in the sand approach is abject stupidity. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (speaking of Social Security) says, "The very last thing we ought to do is putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans." But when the fund is heading to exhaustion in 12 years, doesn't doing nothing amount to "putting at risk the retirement security of millions of Americans?"

At the minute, there is only one candidate running for the presidency or vice-presidency who has put a plan to fix Medicare on the table. The response by the president, vice president and the Democrats has been to accuse that candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, the only guy with the guts to put a plan on the table, of "wanting to push grandma and her wheelchair off the cliff."

Here is what Mr. Ryan writes on his website:

"It is morally unconscionable for elected leaders to cling to an unsustainable status quo with respect to America's health and retirement security programs. Current seniors and future generations deserve better than empty promises and a diminished country. Current retirees deserve the benefits around which they organized their lives. Future generations deserve health and retirement security they can count on. By making gradual structural improvements, Congress can preserve America's social contract with retired workers."

Not content with that "broad statement of principles," candidate Ryan proposes remedies to take effect in 2023, when those presently 55 and under begin to reach retirement age.

"Beginning in 2023, when workers currently under the age of 55 become eligible for Medicare, seniors would be given a choice of private plans competing alongside traditional fee-for-service option on a newly created Medicare Exchange.

"Medicare would provide a premium-support payment either to pay for or offset the premium of the plan chosen by the senior.

"The Medicare Exchange would provide all seniors with a competitive marketplace where they could chose a plan the same way members of Congress do.

"All plans, including the traditional fee-for-service option, would participate in an annual competitive bidding process to determine the dollar amount of the federal contribution seniors would use to purchase the coverage that best serves their medical needs.

"Health care plans would compete for the right to serve Medicare beneficiaries."

What is clear is that Mr. Ryan's remedy:

-- Does not effect current retirees.

Would be applicable only to people presently 55 and under who will reach retirement in 2023 or after.

-- Would give Americans reaching retirement age in 2023 a choice, to go with "a traditional Medicare Plan," or a "private plan."

Congressman Ryan's plan may be good or bad. But at least he has had the guts to put it on the table for debate. Calling Mr. Ryan or his plan names does not seriously address the issue. Running political ads showing a Ryan look-a-like pushing an old lady off the cliff is not serious discussion.

We deserve more from President Obama and the Democrats. What are the details of his plan to keep Part A from becoming exhausted? Doing nothing and avoiding the issue is not a "plan."

Medicare Part A is going broke. "Hope and Change" without more will not save Medicare. Where is the Harry Truman-type of leadership?

Posted Online: :  Sept. 09, 2012, 5:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Share

Can Democracy Survive When Political Leaders Lie

"For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Mark 8:36

How far can a candidate (or political party) go to win an election? Can the candidate lie? Can the political party?

If a Super PAC lies to further the interest of the candidate or political party, can the candidate say, "They are independent; we don't control what they say." Or must the candidate denounce the lie told by the Super PAC?

And if the candidate opts not to denounce the lie and benefits, is he not complicit in the lie? If a friend of mine lies saying, "I have won the Congressional Medal of Honor," can I accept any advantage that follows from the lie?

If I don't disavow the lie and profit from the lie, do not I myself become a liar? Is it permissible to use an evil means -- a lie -- to achieve a good end -- victory at the polls?

On Aug. 7, Priorities USA, a Super PAC, released a political ad titled, "Understands." It features former steelworker, Joe Soptic. The ad is calculated to link Mitt Romney with the death from cancer of Mr. Soptic's wife. Mr. Soptic, referring to Bain Capital takeover of GST Steel plant, says, "I do not think Mitt Romney realizes what he's done to anyone. Furthermore, I do not think Mitt Romney is concerned.

"When Mitt Romney and Bain closed the plant, I lost my health care, and my family lost their health care. And a short time after that, my wife became ill ... she passed away in 22 days."

But here is the timeline:

-- 1993: Bain Capital acquires GST.

-- 1999: Romney takes paid leave-of-absence from Bain to run 2002 Olympics.

-- 2001: GST goes bankrupt.

-- 2002: Joe Soptic is laid off from GST, finds job as school janitor (at much lower salary).

-- 2006: Joe Soptic's wife dies from cancer accidentally discovered when she goes to the hospital for pneumonia.

So, on these facts, would any impartial American jury find Romney caused the death of Renae Soptic? I don't think so. A juror or two might be persuaded, but not 12.

So is this political ad a lie? A lie is generally defined as an intentionally false statement, or a statement made with a reckless disregard from the truth. Had the ad come right out and said, "Mitt Romney murdered my wife," that statement clearly would have been a lie under either prong of my test. The ad doesn't go that far, but it does falsely allege that Romney closed GST.

Romney didn't close GST. He had gone three years before to run the Olympics, and had no part in the plant shutdown, or in Mr. Soptic being laid off or losing his insurance.

To say that a "short time" after (in reality, four years), Mrs. Soptic became ill, and passed away 22 days later, ignores the timeline and the fact that Mrs. Soptic's cancer was discovered seven years after Romney went off to run the Olympics and four years after Mr. Soptic was laid off.

The purpose of the ad is to paint Romney as an "unfeeling predatory capitalist," who runs around closing plants, blithely unconcerned about who he hurts, and that the GST closing resulted in Mrs. Soptic's death.

So, why am I bothered by politicians and PACs that lie? If they lie to get elected, why won't they lie once in office?

Similarly, I am concerned about the Obama administration seeking to redefine abortion as a "woman's health care issue," and not as a "moral issue" as the Catholic Church argues. I don't trust politicians to tell what us is moral.

President Harry S. Truman once said, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. ... If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."

For many people in politics, lying has become a way of life. For them it is an acceptable means to an end. As long as they perceive the end to be a societal good, they believe the means chosen to attain the good are moral. Most churchmen would disagree.

The Catholic Church, the oldest of the Western Christian churches, after considering whether the ends justify the means for 2,000 years, teaches, "Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. Well-formed conscience is upright and truthful ...

"Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them. Some rules apply in every case: One may never do evil so that good may result from it; the Golden Rule: 'Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them.'"

The Church's bottom line is: "One may never do evil so that good may result from it."

Truman saw that. If we tolerate politicians who lie to achieve a greater good, or who utilize lies put forth by their supporters, and refuse to disavow them, then lying becomes a permissible political tool to achieve what whatever the government labels or defines as good.

Posted Online: : August 22, 2012 3:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Share

Romney Guilty until Proven Innocent?

"I was told by an extremely credible person that Romney has not paid taxes for 10 years. People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes ... It's clear Romney is hiding something, and the American people deserve to know what it is.

"I don't know if it's true." -- Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev.


The Democrat majority leader demonstrated from the floor of the U.S. Senate why Washington D.C. is a cesspool. Then, not content with messing the Senate floor, he went on to tell the Huffington Post that, a "person who had invested with Bain Capital," called his office and said, "Harry, he (Mr. Romney) didn't pay taxes for 10 years!"

Sen. Reid continued, "Now do I know that that's true. Well, I'm not certain."

When Mr. Reid states that Mr. Romney had not paid taxes in 10 years, there can be but two logical -- diametrically opposed -- interpretations: Mr. Romney lawfully paid no taxes because he took advantage of all deduction made available to him by the tax code. Or Mr. Romney is guilty of tax evasion -- a felony.

Now, if Mr. Reid were merely saying, Mr. Romney took advantage of all lawful deductions, then what did Mr. Romney do that any other lawfully acting American wasn't permitted to do? Doesn't the rational person paying federal income tax take advantage of every deduction allowed to him?

But then, what is Sen. Reid talking about when he goes on to say "People who make as much money as Mitt Romney have many tricks at their disposal to avoid paying taxes? What (dirty?) "tricks"?

Aren't those "tricks" known as deductions? Aren't all Americans entitled to take every applicable deduction allowed? And who wrote the code with all those "tricks?" Clearly not Mr. Romney. Aren't the tax laws made by Reid and his cronies in the U.S. House and Senate?

I suggest Mr. Reid intended his remarks to be pejorative. If that is not so, why accuse Mr. Romney of "hiding something, ... and the American people deserve to know what it is?"

Mr. Reid's innuendo is clearly that candidate Romney is a tax evader -- a criminal. What kind of man accuses another of employing "tricks," "hiding something" or criminal tax evasion, and then backs it up with insipidity? ("I don't know if its true." Or, "Now do I know that that's true? Well, I'm not certain.")

Gov. Romney is a public figure. Ordinarily, public men can't be libeled or slandered unless the libels or slanders are made with a "reckless disregard for the truth." But what else is it other than a "reckless disregard for the truth," when Mr. Reid says, "I don't know if its true"?

Does a man act ethically when he implies another is guilty of tax evasion? When he repeats something -- from an unnamed source -- that he does not know to be true? But then of course, Sen. Reid, has a trump card.

For a speech made in the Senate, Article 1 of the Constitution says Mr. Reid cannot "be questioned in any other place." He can't be sued for libel or slander.

In criminal law, a judge can't issue an arrest or search warrant without first finding probable cause. When a police officer applies for a search warrant, and the officer is relying on hearsay of a "confidential source" or "unnamed informant," the affidavit for a warrant must show more than that an informant says, "Mr. X is committing a crime."

First it must show specific facts that make probable a crime is being committed. The affidavit must further factually demonstrate to the judge that the informant (who is not before the court and not subject to penalties of perjury) is a "reliable informant." The American public has been told nothing factual by Mr. Reid which in any way demonstrates that his "unnamed informant" is or was "reliable." Mr. Reid concluding that his source is credible does not make it so.

Instead, Mr. Reid demands that Mr. Romney release 10 years of his tax returns; that is, that Mr. Romney must "prove his innocence." That is the rule of the Spanish Inquisition, not of the American judicial system. In America, men are "presumed innocent until they are proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." A senator should know that. Even a Republican candidate for president should be accorded that presumption. And if Mr. Romney has been evading taxes for 10 years, where has the IRS been?

On Feb. 9, 1951, Senator Joseph McCarthy, R-Wis., said, referring to people in the U. S. State Department:

"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy."

In 1951, calling somebody a communist was the preferred way of destroying them. Today, suggesting that a candidate is a rich tax-evader seems to be the method of choice.

Americans came to despise Joe McCarthy. As the accuser, Harry Reid has the burden of proof.

If he cannot demonstrate he is acting in good faith, he will deserve to be called, "Dirty Harry" and ranked with Joe McCarthy.

Posted Online: : Aug. 13, 2012, 5:00 am  - Quad-Cities Online

by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea