Rock Island County Courthouse -- The Young Lady Grew Old

When I first saw the Rock Island County Courthouse in 1966, I was young, but she was already growing old. She was 69. We have both grown older together. Now that I have passed 69, I think I can fairly say that the years have been kinder to me than to her. At least, I haven't undergone the "operations" ("remodelings").

When I first saw her in September of 1966, she was open, airy and friendly. In those days, there were four courtrooms in the building.Then, you could freely walk from one end of the circuit clerk's office to the other, examine the files, and kibbitz with the clerks. I liked working there. Now there are so many employees, there is no room for any of that. Everything is chopped and blocked off.

The present courthouse was built in an era before electricity was generally used. Indeed, when I first met her in 1966, you could still find a few old gas fixtures on her rotunda walls. And of course, when she was built in 1897 computers and their cables were unknown. In the 30 plus years I roamed the building, my most vivid memory was the thermostats in the various offices -- not functional, but at least decorative!

The courthouse was dedicated on March 31, 1897. To gather facts for this piece, I visited the Rock Island County Historical Society and the county clerk's office to learn what I could about the plans for and the usage of the building in 1897 to contrast it with the usage today.

The original building plans for the 1897 courthouse called for:

-- 1. Two rooms for a sheriff's office;
-- 2. One room for a surveyor's office;
-- 3. County clerk's office consisting of a private office, a workroom (both 20 x 26 feet) and a vault;
-- 4. A county judge's office (16 x 20 feet ) and county courtroom (24 x 40 feet);
-- 5. Treasurer's office (24 x 32 feet) and a vault;
-- 6. Circuit clerk's office consisting of an office (26 x 30 feet), a workroom (20 x 26 feet), and a vault;
-- 7. Circuit courtroom (42 x 64 feet and 24 feet high);
-- 8. State's attorney's room; and
-- 9. Circuit judge's room.

Years later, a probate judge's courtroom and chamber (1S) were added by remodeling. Shortly before I arrived in 1966, the circuit courtroom (3rd Floor South) was chopped up to make a new small circuit courtroom, a hearing room, three judges' chambers, plus additional office space on the 4th floor.
Thereafter, another courtroom was created on 3rd Floor North. The county courtroom (2N) was turned into probation offices, and a new smaller county courtroom was built. Then, a small claims courtroom, and a 2nd hearing room were built at 1 North. Finally, the probate courtroom and chambers (1S) were remodeled into two traffic courtrooms.

The courthouse, which housed two courtrooms in 1897, and four in 1966, now houses eight shabby, unimpressive courtrooms.

In 1897, Rock Island County had the following elected officers (as best as I can determine): state's attorney, sheriff, circuit clerk, county clerk, superintendent of schools, treasurer, coroner, county surveyor and county judge. In addition, the courthouse was to be used by the circuit judge.

The December 1894 semi-annual fees report, pertaining to the three largest Rock Island County offices, shows that in three offices there were, perhaps, a total of eight employees. The courthouse, though some employee expansion was contemplated, was built to accommodate nine employees, and perhaps six or seven helpers. That's perhaps 16-20 people in all.

In 2013, the offices which haven't been moved to the Rock Island County Office Building, are staffed by the following number of officers and employees:

-- Recorder of deeds: 11
-- State's attorney: 27
-- Circuit clerk: 44
-- Office of the chief judge: 4
-- Sheriff's office -- security: 1

A building that accommodated about 20 employees in 1897, now accommodates at least 87.

The once beautiful domed-building long ago lost its dome. The gracious old county and circuit courtrooms have disappeared only to be replaced by drab, uninspiring hearing rooms which demean the dignity of the proceedings.

The once spacious offices are now chopped, cramped and crowded. And the rotunda is a major fire or murder waiting to happen. The two traffic courts -- never contemplated in 1897 -- now handle 30,000 cases per year.
The building has served better than was ever imagined.

But it is now physically and functionally obsolete. And given the historically low interest rates, the time has come to give Rock Island County a computer-age facility.

Posted Online:  March 21, 2013, 3:26 pm  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

When Does Political Half-truth Become a Lie?

"Administration officials are coming forward with a grim compendium of jobs to be lost, services to be denied or delayed, military defenses to be let down and important operations to be disrupted. Obama's new chief of staff, Denis McDonough, spoke of a 'devastating list of horribles.'" -- AP

With each passing day of the Obama presidency, I am become more disillusioned with what I regard as the administration's reckless disregard for the truth, and the mainstream media's willingness to repeat the administration's propaganda, without making a semblance of an effort to fact check.

The president daily ticks off a "parade of horribles" that will occur once the sequester goes into effect. An obsequious press uncritically repeats whatever he says.

It is perhaps time for every American to read Wm. L. Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich." From 1925 to 1932, Shirer served as European correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. In 1937, Edward R. Murrow, CBS' European manager, hired Shirer as European Bureau chief. Shirer lived and worked in Germany from 1934 to 1940 (the years during which Hitler consolidated his power, raped Austria and Czechoslovakia, and started WWII) -- the years during which the German press was made politically clean -- politically correct.

Shirer writes, "To be an editor in the Third Reich one had to be, in the first place, politically and racially clean. The Reich Press Law of October 4, 1933, which made journalism a "public vocation," regulated by law, stipulated that all editors must possess German citizenship, be of Aryan descent and not be married to a Jew. Section 14 of the Press Law ordered editors "to keep out of the newspapers anything which in any manner is misleading to the public, mixes selfish aims with community aims, tends to weaken the will of the German Reich, outwardly or inwardly, the common will of the German people, the defense of Germany, its culture and economy ... or offends the honor and dignity of Germany ...."

Shirer goes on to describe the effectiveness of the law:

"I myself was to experience how easily one is taken in by a lying and censored press and radio in a totalitarian state. Though unlike most Germans I had daily access to foreign newspapers, especially those of London, Paris and Zurich ... and though I listened regularly to the BBC and other foreign broadcasts, my job necessitated the spending of many hours a day combing the German press, checking the German radio, conferring with Nazi officials and going to party meetings. It was surprising and sometimes consternating to find that notwithstanding the opportunities I had to learn the facts and despite one's inherent distrust of what one learned from Nazi sources, a steady diet over the years of falsification and distortions made a certain impression on one's mind and often misled it. No one who has not lived in a totalitarian land can possibly conceive how difficult it is to escape the dread consequences of a regime's calculated and incessant propaganda. Often in a German home or office, or sometimes in a casual conversation with a stranger in a restaurant, a beer hall, a cafe, I would meet with the most outlandish assertions from seemingly educated and intelligent persons. It was obvious that they were parroting some piece of nonsense they had heard on the radio or read in the newspapers. Sometimes one was tempted to say as much, but on such occasion one was met with such a stare of incredulity, such a shock of silence, as if one had blasphemed the Almighty, that one realized how useless it was to try and make contact with a mind which had become warped and for whom the facts of life had become what Hitler and Goebbels, with their cynical disregard for truth, said they were."

In America, we still have the First Amendment. But everyday advocates of political correctness, including administration officials, seek to stifle what they deem "politically incorrect," or "untruthful."

Recently, the administration in the stolen valor case, U. S. v. Alvarez, argued "that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection."

Fortunately the court ruled against the government, but had the government prevailed, this government, which is already in the business of "redefining" what is and what isn't "religious activity," could quickly have gone into the business of defining what opposition statements are "false" so as to suppress them.

People who tell lies that are 100 percent false are almost always perceived to be liars. But the liar who skillfully weaves a fabric, by blending lies with truth,can dupe almost everybody. I do not believe that President Obama and his officials knowingly say things they know to be 100 percent false, but I do believe they operate on the principle that the "ends justify the means," and as such weave a blended fabric.

But there still is a problem. When the government, day after day, engages in hyperbole, exaggeration, and character assassination and mixes in a modicum of truth to give veracity to what otherwise could only be described as "untruthful," the government undermines the democratic process.

A majority fed a steady diet of half-truths can hardly be expected to make right and critical choices for the welfare of the nation. Shirer saw that first hand.

I suggest that where the government lies, and where the press repeats the lies, it makes little difference whether the press is controlled by law, or by its own pro-government bias.

Posted Online:  March 06, 2013, 11:18 am  - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2013
John Donald O'Shea

Income Redistribution? Blame Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun

Income Redistribution? Blame Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun

President Obama will probably be remembered as the great proponent of income redistribution. But income redistribution was really the unintended offspring of two of America's "outstanding senators" Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun!

I use the term "outstanding senators" advisedly because in 1957, a special Senate committee, chaired by John F. Kennedy, identified Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun as one of the nation's "five outstanding deceased senators."

You will probably ask how the committee could possibly name Calhoun -- the leading proponent of slavery -- one of the five greatest senators. It happened because the committee had agreed to judge candidates "for acts of statesmanship transcending party and State lines" and had defined statesmanship to include "leadership in national thought and constitutional interpretation as well as legislation."

But Calhoun was the proponent, not of one, but two lost causes. And while no American would espouse his views on slavery in the 21st century, his mature views on income redistribution are as relevant today as they were when he made them in 1828.Indeed Calhoun's views are alive and well in the tenets of the Republican Party.

Calhoun's first great lost cause was not slavery. It was the tariff -- a tariff Calhoun had strongly espoused in his early years in Congress -- during his nationalist period (c. 1816) when he served as one of Speaker Henry Clay's principal lieutenants, and worked to enact Clay's "American System."

It called for a protective tariff, first, to insure profitable home markets for the American manufacturers and, second, to finance "internal improvements." It was Calhoun's belief that a system of road and canals would appeal to the self-interest of farmers desirous of moving their produce to market as well as merchants engaged in commerce, and would thus bind them all to the national government.

But what Calhoun didn't foresee was that manufacturing would take hold only in the North (New England primarily) and not in the South. He did not foresee that the tariff would benefit only New England by keeping English manufactured products out of the country.

The tariff had the effect of denying cheaper English manufactured goods from entering the South, thus forcing the South to buy more expensive goods made in New England. It was this, that led to Calhoun to do a 180, abjure his earlier tariff position, and develop his doctrine of "nullification."

Calhoun came to believe that without states having power to nullify Congressional actions which they deemed unconstitutional, the majority in the North would bleed the minority in the South dry.

In 1791, Alexander Hamilton, the first secretary of the Treasury, in his Report on Manufactures to the House of Representatives, had written, "The power of Congress to authorize the expenditure of public moneys is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution, but is in addition thereto."

Mr. Hamilton further asserted that it belonged "to the discretion of Congress alone" to determine which "objects ... concern the General Welfare, and for which an appropriation of money is proper."

In 1828, Calhoun, in his South Carolina Exposition and Protest, assailed Hamilton's position. Calhoun did not deny the Constitution gave Congress power "to 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."

But he argued the Constitution gave Congress the power to "lay imposts and duties" only for the purpose of raising revenues for the "general" welfare, and not to raise revenues to benefit one section or class at the expense of another.

"The act of Congress of the last session, The Tariff of 1828 ... imposing duties on imports, not for revenue, but the protection of one branch of industry at the expense of others, is unconstitutional, unequal, oppressive, and calculated to ... destroy the liberty of the country. ...

"The opposing interests of the community would engender ... hostile parties, organized on this very diversity of interests, the stronger of which -- if the Government provided no efficient check -- would exercise unlimited and unrestrained power over the weaker."

He clearly saw the danger of the majority using the taxing power to enriching itself at the expense of the minority. He saw no difference between the majority using tax laws as a weapon to take from the minority and a highwayman using a pistol to despoil the occupants of a sumptuous coach.

But Calhoun was helpless to undo what he had done. The majority in the North fell in love with the benefits of the Calhoun/Clay tariff of 1816. Thus, as strange as it seems, President Obama walks in the shoes of Alexander Hamilton and John C. Calhoun!

Posted Online:  Feb. 28, 2013 at 3:03 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Supreme Court Said Right to Bear Arms Belongs to You

"(H)istory showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents." -- D.C. v Heller (2008), U. S. Supreme Court

The Second Amendment provides, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

So, is the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" the individual right of every American citizen, or do Americans have that right only while serving on active duty in the militia? In the Heller decision, the Supreme Court has unequivocally said that the right belongs to the individual.

The right to keep and bear arms of course is premised on the God-given right of every individual to act in self-defense, and in defense of his family. In the colonial period, Americans in the 13 colonies -- especially those who lived on the frontier -- had to act for their own protection against robbers, hostile Indians and from time to time French soldiers. There were no police forces, and the sheriff was often miles away.

The point that has to be understood is this: The right to keep and bear arms in the English-American colonies pre-existed the Second Amendment. In the words of the Heller court, "The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it 'shall not be infringed.'"

Additionally, however, the individual's right was rooted in experience -- in the history of the English-speaking peoples.

"Between the Restoration and the Glorious Revolution, the Stuart Kings, Charles II and James II, succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents.... These experiences caused Englishmen to be extremely wary of concentrated military forces run by the state and to be jealous of their arms. They accordingly obtained an assurance from William and Mary, in the Declaration of Rights (which was codified as the English Bill of Rights), that Protestants would never be disarmed: 'That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." (1689). This right has long been understood to be the predecessor to our Second Amendment. ... By the time of the founding, the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects.'"

Early legislation after the enactment of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights (1791) confirms the correctness of the Heller holding. The Militia Act of May 8, 1795 defines militia as consisting of "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years."

But the act then goes on to require each member of the militia to provide their own weaponry. "That every citizen so enrolled ... shall ... provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed."
Absent a pre-existent individual right to keep and bear arms, it would make no sense whatsoever to require them to "appear, so armed."

While today it may seem unlikely that America will ever face governmental tyranny, at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, "It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down."

And then, of course, there are areas in Chicago and Washington D. C. where the gang-bangers don't care who they kill, and where the police seem incapable of providing an iota of protection. There, the right to bear arms in defense of self and family makes every bit as much since as it did on the frontier of colonial America.

Indeed with drug violence pouring across our porous southern border, the right to keep and bear arms may be fast becoming even more important in our time than it was in 1791.


Posted Online:  Feb. 17, 2013, 6:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea

Where Do our Rights Come from? God, Declaration, Constitution

"A free people (claim) their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." -- Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

Are rights God-given, or gifts from government? In his 2013 inaugural address, President Obama expressed his view:

"What makes us exceptional ... (American) -- is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago: 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.' Today we continue a never-ending journey, to bridge the meaning of those words with the realities of our time... Being true to our founding documents does not ... mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way, or follow the same precise path to happiness. Progress ... require us to act in our time."

The president concedes that all men have inalienable God-given rights. But he believes that progress requires redefinition of those terms.

For President Obama, what Jefferson and the men who approved the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution meant by life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not good enough in 2013. He gives examples of what they should mean "in our time."

-- For President Obama, liberty means income redistribution: "(W)e ... understand that our country cannot succeed when a shrinking few do very well and a growing many barely make it."

-- For Mr. Obama, pursuit of happiness means "that every citizen deserves a basic measure of security and dignity" -- including health insurance, unemployment insurance, disaster assistance, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

-- For President Obama, liberty and the pursuit of happiness requires income equality of men and women: "For our journey is not complete until our wives, our mothers, and daughters can earn a living equal to their efforts."

-- Rights in Mr. Obama's America include gay marriage: "Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law — ... the love we commit to one another must be equal as well."

-- And, of course, the progressive pursuit of happiness must be available to "hopeful immigrants who still see America as a land of opportunity."

I don't quarrel with the idea that government has the power to provide for national health care, Medicare, Social Security or to order immigration, etc. But I do quarrel with Mr. Obama's attempt to redefine life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I want these terms and the words of the Constitution interpreted at least as generously as the men who wrote them intended.

I see grave danger in President Obama or Congress redefining those terms in a more progressive way. If our fundamental documents are defined and construed consistently with the experience and intent of the men who wrote them, I feel secure. The Declaration and the Constitution were not based in logic, or in 21st century notions of what is politically popular or correct.

They were written to protect Americans from the abuses perpetrated by the British crown. They wrote a Bill of Rights to guarantee the liberties they deemed essential, and to deny to the government -- the temporary majority -- the power to abbreviate or redefine those rights whenever it deemed change necessary or reasonable.

The problem is simply this: If modern governments (the temporary majority) can redefine rights to expand rights, it can just as easily redefine rights to contract rights -- or even redefine them out of existence. And that is exactly what it is trying to do.

The American people have right to have their laws enacted by Congress, and approved by the executive. President Obama, smarting from which he perceives to be bad faith on the part of congressional Republicans, chooses instead to make his own laws -- by Executive Order.

The president makes appointments without Senate consent, claiming it is "in recess," (redefining "recess") in the face of an explicit Senate order that it is not "in recess."

When immigration laws enacted by Congress would require the president to deport persons who have sneaked into our country, rather than faithfully executing duly enacted laws pursuant to his oath, the president uses his pardon power to ignore the laws.

This same administration that now holds itself out as definer of the new rights, is also redefining religious activity ("the free exercise of religion") to exclude religious charities, colleges and other non-core religious activities. It requires them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, redefining it is a matter of public health and not religious freedom.

Not content with contracting First Amendment rights, the administration seeks to redefine the Second Amendment Right to bear arms to limit that right.

Thomas Jefferson believed rights came from God and wrote precisely that in Declaration of Independence. Our founders were not comfortable with the notion that our "unalienable rights" were endowed by the king, president, Congress or any other government.

Experience had taught them that the same king or government that could give rights, could just as quickly take rights away.

To make sure that didn't happen in America, the founders and the people of America appended the Bill of Rights to our Constitution.

The advantage, of course, in being given our rights by God, as opposed to government, is obvious.

If God gave them, it is beyond the power of human government to nullify God's grant.


Posted Online: Feb. 06, 2013, 2:44 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea
 
 

Getting to ther Root of Why Mass Murderers Kill

 

What does America need to do to prevent mass murders? How do we prevent a future Columbine? Sandy Hook?

The immediate focus has been on banning assault weapons. But even given the availability of guns, I can't help but wonder if any of these murders would have occurred if that was the only factor present.

Ask yourself what common factors you see in three recent mass murders. See if you see what I think I see.

In discussing contributing factors to the violence at Columbine High School by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, researchers Dr. Craig Anderson and Dr. Karen Dill stated:

"Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively kill. The Simon Wiesenthal Center, which tracks Internet hate groups, found in its archives a copy of Harris' website with a version of Doom that he had customized. In his version there are two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammunition, and the other people in the game can't fight back. For a class project, Harris and Klebold made a videotape that was similar to their customized version of Doom. In the video, Harris and Klebold dress in trench coats, carry guns and kill school athletes. They acted out their videotaped performance in real life less than a year later. An investigator associated with the Wiesenthal Center said Harris and Klebold were 'playing out their game in God mode.'"

Norway's mass killer, Anders Behring Breivik, testified during his trial that he played video games as a way to train for his shooting spree that killed 77 people last summer. In particular, Anders Behring Breivik said at his trial, he played "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2" for shooting practice, according to CNN's report. That military action game sold more than 10 million copies upon its 2009 release.

"Breivik ... testified that he spent hours playing Call Of Duty instead of socializing with any friends. He had spent the preceding New Year's Eve on his computer."

"The game is described as a 'first person shooter video game' and Breivik admitted by using it he honed his gun and targeting skills.
"He would use those same 'skills' to kill 69 innocent people on the island of Utoya."

"On the opening day of the trial prosecutors read the names of the dead ... Most of them had died after taking two or three shots -- and sometimes more -- directly to the head.

"Cross examined about the game, Breivik told the court: 'The game teaches about target acquisition and you have to practice within a specific time. It's a war simulator that shows you how to shoot at people. It helps you acquire experience of sights and targeting.

"The game uses a 'holographic sight' similar to the one that Breivik attached to his hunting rifle when he stalked his victims on the island with unerring accuracy." (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2132002/Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-Norway-killer-wanted-behead-prime-minister-live-online.html#ixzz2FHKiuQpT)

Adam Lanza, 20, forced his way into Sandy Hook Elementary School at Newtown, Conn., and murdered 20 children and six adults before committing suicide, after murdering his mother, Nancy Lanza, in their home by shooting her in the face. Lanza used a .223 semi-automatic rifle, fired from close range.

Lanza is reputed to have been mentally ill, aggressive with an baleful obsession for violent computer games. His favorite was said to be a violent fantasy war game called "Dynasty Warriors". That game is thought to have given him inspiration to act out the murders. He is said to have suffered from antisocial disorder and was known for being unable to empathize or socialize with others, suffering child-like violent tantrums. His condition was so extreme that his mother would never leave him alone in a room.
Lanza's mother was said to be a "survivalist". She was honing her skills, including her shooting skills.

The killer's aunt, Marsha Lanza, said Nancy "was stockpiling food ... getting ready for the economic collapse. I think she had (legally procured) the guns for self-defense because she lived alone." It was apparently for that reason that she had acquired the weapons and "dum-dum" bullets used by Lanza to kill the teachers and children in Newtown. Lanza appears to have had access to his mother's arsenal. He learned to shoot when his mother took him to a local gun range. (http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/365190/Killer-Adam-Lanza-obsessed-with-violent-video-games)

Unquestionably, guns were present in each of these situations. But would any of these shooting have occurred in the absence of the violent video games that trained the murderers, and inspired them to replicate mass killings they saw in the videos? Without mental illness — insanity? Or if any of the murderers had a strong belief in God? In the commandment that says, "thou shall not kill?" Or a belief that if they took innocent life they might well face an eternity in Hell?

Or is it the gun alone that causes a person to drive to a grade school and take innocent life? If so, why weren't the Columbine and Sandy Hook murders the work of policemen?


Posted Online: Jan. 16, 2013, 3:03 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea
 

Their Leaders Did Not Dare to Undeceive Them

"Their leaders, seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them."

After World War I, the allies imposed "reparations" on Germany. The rationale was that German aggression had caused of the war; Germany should therefore reimburse the allies for damages done by that aggression.

In "The Gathering Storm," criticizing the reparations imposed, Winston Churchill wrote, "The multitudes remained plunged in ignorance of the simplest economic facts, and their leaders seeking their votes, did not dare to undeceive them. The newspapers, after their fashion, reflected and emphasized the prevailing opinions. Few voices were raised to explain that the payment of reparations can only be made by ...."

The same can be said about the fiscal cliff negotiations in Washington. President Obama assures the country that all will be well if only taxes are raised on Americans with incomes greater than $250,000. He vows not to cut entitlements. He speaks of cutting spending -- not by cutting spending, but rather by cutting increases in the rate of spending. And most of the American main-stream media uncritically echo the president. Now, Democrats and Republicans in Congress vote to raise taxes on couples with incomes greater than $450,000, while making no meaningful spending cuts, and half the country cheers deliriously.

So if we were to let the Bush-era tax cuts on the "rich" expire -- defined by the president as households making more than $250,000 a year -- how much will the higher income tax rates bring in? $56 billion a year -- 5 percent of this year's deficit!

Our deficit this year will be over $1 trillion. Raising the rates on those earning over $250,000 would still leave a 2012 deficit of $950 billion! And, then, only if the new revenues are used to reduce the deficit. But Mr. Obama wants instead to spend $50 billion for a new stimulus! Cynically, the Senate bill does even less.

Here is the simple fact: This country is running a $5 billion deficit each day. However the $56 billion in new taxes is spent, it will be gone in 11 days! The president is playing the American people for partisan advantage. His plan is a cynical joke. Speaker John Boehner and the Republicans make no serious effort to explain to the public just how serious the deficit is.

On Dec. 17, Bret Baier on the Fox News Channel demonstrated with simple graphs what is really going on in Washington. To keep it understandable, Baier referenced U. S. revenues and expenses for one month -- the month of November 2012.

Each day during November, the government brought in a little more than $5 billion of revenue. Each day during that month, the U.S. government spent more than $11 billion. The difference (deficit) is roughly $6 billion per day, or $180 billion for the month!

Of that $11 billion in expenses, the top items were:

-- Department of Health and Human Services (Medicare) roughly $3 billion a day;
-- Social Security roughly $2.5 billion a day;
-- The Department of Defense $1.8 billion a day;
-- Interest on the debt, $854 million every day.

Baier noted that economists say that the interest is the most concerning of all since the country gets practically nothing in exchange for it. Even worse, interest rates are subject to wild fluctuation.

In the words of former Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Indiana, "We've got a $16 trillion debt, and servicing the debt (paying interest on it) is hard now. This is with interest rates at record lows. God forbid something should happen to cause interest rates to go up even a little -- back to where they ordinarily would be. he burden of this debt would become immensely greater."

Alice Rivlin, Bill Clinton's budget director, attributed the bulk of the spending problem to the promises made under Medicare, Medicaid and, to a lesser extent, Social Security.

"They'll drive federal spending up faster than our economy can grow. Revenues won't keep up, so we have a problem. If you don't have enough revenues to pay for the spending, you have to borrow. And on the track that we are on, if we go on doing what is in the law over the next several decades, our public debt will rise faster than our economy can grow.

"When that happens you got a real problem, because you've got to pay interest on that debt, and your creditors see that your debt's rising faster than your economy is growing, so they charge more and more and it's a very bad situation."

Arthur Brooks, with the American Enterprise Institute, finds current debates about higher taxes misguided, with federal spending on overdrive.

"And the problem is right now you have a situation in which the government (is) overspending (and) tries to rationalize it by saying that actually the problem is we're under-taxing the American public. It's like your irresponsible brother-in-law runs up his credit cards and goes bust and says the real problem is because you've stopped sending me checks," he said. "The truth of the matter is our country spends too much."

In speaking of reparations, Churchill lamented, "No one in great authority had the wit, ascendancy or detachment from public folly to declare these fundamental brutal facts to the electorate; nor would any one have been believed if they had."

On the tax/deficit problems that is not quite true. Baier, Bayh, Rivlin and Brooks are sounding the warnings. But is anybody listening? Does anybody care?


Posted Online: : Posted Online: Jan. 03, 2013, 8:37 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2012
John Donald O'Shea