College Athletes? NLRB to the Rescue??

Northwestern University has just been advised by Peter Ohr, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board that its football players are "employees" first and "students second."

According to ESPN, "If (Ohr's) decision is upheld, it will give players at private universities a voice in the management of their lives as athletes and students. It will qualify players for workers' compensation benefits for injuries that occur during their playing careers, benefits that will cover them well into their futures. Instead of coaches issuing schedules and setting rules for their private lives, the players and their union will bargain for their working conditions in the same way NFL and MLB players bargain for benefits. And, although the Northwestern players say they are not interested in payments for their efforts, the formation of a players' union will open the way to salaries for athletes in football and men's basketball."

Mr. Ohr's opinion focused on the number of hours Northwestern players allegedly devoted to football and to the control coaches have over their lives. But while Northwestern players play football, they also graduate.

At the Division I level, the football Graduation Success Rate, admittedly, varies from university to university. But it simply is untrue to say -- at least for universities like Northwestern, Notre Dame and Stanford -- that "the student-athlete is a cherished, long standing American myth, which retains a modicum of validity only at non-scholarship colleges." It is also a canard to make a blanket statement that at the Division 1 level, athletes are treated like chopped-meat.

Northwestern's NCAA Football Student Graduation Rate was a best in the nation 97 percent. It was followed by Rice at 95 percent, Notre Dame and Boston College at 94 percent, Air Force and Stanford at 93 percent, Duke at 92 percent and Boise State at 91 percent. And at Northwestern, Notre Dame and Stanford, the football players take the same classes as the rest of the student body. There are no "special" courses for "jocks." To minimize their student-status is to falsely denigrate their success.

But scholarship football players are only a part of the story. Notre Dame, for example, has 22 men's and women's sports that show up in the NCAA's Student-Athlete Graduation Rate Survey. In 20 of its 22 programs, Notre Dame graduated 100 percent of its student-athletes. Indeed, the NCAA's figures released on Oct. 24, 2013, show that all 11 Irish women's programs posted a GSR of 100 percent -- basketball, cross country/track, fencing, golf, lacrosse, rowing, soccer, softball, swimming/diving, tennis and volleyball.

Among Notre Dame's men's sports, baseball, basketball, cross country/track, fencing, golf, hockey, soccer, swimming/diving and tennis achieved 100 percent GSR scores. Men's lacrosse scored 96 percent and football 94 percent.

The cost of going to the colleges listed here isn't cheap. Northwestern's 2013-14 tuition, fees, room and board were $57,108. Notre Dame's were $57,117; a full, one-year athletic scholarship to either institution is worth just under $60,000. Moreover, the football players and other scholarship athletes get first-rate educations. And when a player gets hurt at Northwestern or Notre Dame, they don't lose their scholarship; moreover, they get the best medical care available. And of course, they are coached-up to play at the highest level, which for at least a few leads to a lucrative pro career.

So, would your son do better if instead of taking an athletic-scholarship to play football at Northwestern, he opted to play minor league baseball? Hardly. A first-year player in the Rookie League earns $1,150 per month; $1,300 at Low A; $1,500 at high A. Additionally, they get a $20 per day meal allowance during the season while on the road. Therefore, a rookie-level minor leaguer earns about $10,500 per year.

A full-time minimum wage worker earns about $20,000 per year and pays taxes. A football player at Northwestern earns $60,000 per year, plays and gets coached-up in the game he loves, and gets the best education in the world while his tuition and books are tax-free income.

For the Reporting Year Sept. 1, 2012-Aug. 31, 2013, Northwestern's Total Football Revenues were $30,143,982; expenses were $21,722,796. On its face, Northwestern appears to have made big profit of $8,421,186 from its football program. Its men's basketball team also generated a profit of $6,667,910. But those were the only profitable sports programs.

Women's basketball, fencing and field hockey, lacrosse, softball, track-field-cross-country and volleyball, as well as men's baseball and wrestling, and men's and women's golf, soccer, swimming and diving and tennis were big losers. The combined net loss for those sports was (revenues of $1,972,700 less expenses of $16,275,194) was $14,302,494.

The bottom line is that Northwestern's profits from football and men's basketball finance the other male and all women's sports.

Mr. Ohr looks at the more than $8.4 million generated by the football program and sees money that could be used to pay the football players and afford them other benefits. His ruling, however, ignores the fact that the university's football (and men's basketball) earnings fund the whole Northwestern sports program. Without football and men's basketball revenues, women's sports and other men's sports cease to exist, unless the university chooses to fund them with tuition or other resources

ESPN notes, "The decision in the Northwestern case affects only private universities. Any attempt by players to form a union at ... Ohio State, or Nebraska, would be governed by the specific state's laws on unions of public employees (teachers, firefighters, police)."

Can the NCAA live with a scheme where private universities can award incoming football player a $60,000 scholarship plus a $250,000 signing bonus and a salary, while state universities are limited to giving only a scholarship worth about $60K? Will private universities find themselves expelled from the NCAA if they do?

Once players unionize and bargain for "compensation," won't that compensation become taxable just like other "bargained-for income?" What about union dues?

The issues I raise are only the first of the unintended consequences -- one of which might well be a strike in lieu of the football season or the national championship game.

Posted Online:  April 5, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Hang Onto Your Wallets, Here they Come Again!

Progressive? Liberal? It doesn't matter. These guys have never met a tax increase they don't like. So, hang onto your wallets! Here they come again!

In case you missed it, in January 2011, Democrats in the Illinois Legislature raised the state income tax on individuals 66 percent -- from 3-5 percent -- and Illinois' corporate income tax to 9.5 percent. Not one Republican voted for the increases.

Democrat Gov. Pat Quinn ecstatically signed the tax increases into law. The increases have generated between $7 billion and $8 billion each year since, all of which has been ripped from the pockets of taxpayers. And of course, if Speaker Michael Madigan was to be believed, those tax increases were "temporary!"

What good did it do? These days, the only way Illinois can keep big businesses from leaving the state, and bring new ones in, is to bribe them with incentives. Big corporations, who provide jobs, don't like paying 9.5 percent corporate income taxes.

Have all these tax increases helped the state's credit rating? Hardly.
Here is what the Chicago Tribune reported on June 6, 2013:

"Moody's Investors' Service on Thursday downgraded Illinois' general obligation credit rating by one notch -- to the lowest rating in the state's history -- following a move earlier this week by Fitch Ratings.

"Moody's downgraded Illinois' $27 billion of general obligation debt to A3 from A2, with a negative outlook after state lawmakers last week failed to pass a plan to deal with a $100 billion unfunded public pension liability."

And on March 14, 2013, Huff Post Chicago headlines, "Illinois budget deficit worst in the nation: State is reportedly $43.8 billion in the red," based on a report issued by Illinois Auditor General William Holland. Mr. Holland states that "the state's overall budget deficit has more than doubled in the past five years."

The audit analyzed the Illinois Comptroller's comprehensive annual financial report which lists all state government assets and liabilities for fiscal year 2011.

When Democrats rammed through the 2011 tax increases, then-House Minority Leader Tom Cross, R-Oswego, said, "It's a cruel hoax to play on citizens to say this is temporary."

Two years later, as if to prove Tom Cross a prophet, Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie, a top House Democrat, said, "The state's temporary income tax increase from 2011 should become permanent. ... I think most legislators in this building, even those who will never vote to extend that income tax increase, would tell you we need the dollars."

Now Democrats are not even satisfied with that; they want a graduated income tax for Illinois. A coalition delusionally calling itself "A Better Illinois" is leading the charge.

"If Illinois were to adopt the same graduated income tax rate structure as Iowa, Illinois would raise $6.3 billion more in revenue than it does from its current five percent flat rate, while 54 percent -- over half -- of all taxpayers would pay less in state income taxes," from The Case for Creating a Graduated Income Tax in Illinois.

But if 54 percent of taxpayers would pay less, the 46 percent who pay more will have to pay the additional $6.3 billion PLUS billions more to make up for what the 54 percent who will be paying less won't be paying!

And look who is supporting this newest effort to plunder productive citizens -- the usual suspects! Indeed, at their March 19, meeting 17 of out 25 esteemed Rock Island County board members -- ALL DEMOCRATS --at the urging of state Rep. Mike Smiddy, D-Hillsdale, voted to support the campaign to put the proposal for a graduated state income tax on the November ballot. The five Republican members had the good sense to vote no!

And look who else is supporting putting on the ballot the extra $6.3 billion tax increase (on top of the billions approved in 2011. DEMOCRATS)! They include state Sen. Mike Jacobs, D-East Moline, with his bland, "the voters will ultimately decide."

When does it end?

Moline aldermen in December 2013 approved sewer rate increases for each of the next five years. The public schools just unsuccessfully sought a 1 percent increase in the sales tax. The county wanted and didn't get a .25 percent increase in the sales tax for the sheriff. The county is expected to vote in November for a tax increase to support Hope Creek Care Center.
And in Washington, the president never tires of demanding that the "rich" pay their fair share ("fair share" equals "more").

If this keeps up, Illinois will go the way of the bankrupt city of Detroit. If this keeps up, the productive and vilified "rich" will head south. Corporations will continue to choose not to locate here without being incentivized (bribed) to do so (and yes, you and I are taxed to provide those incentives!).

The tax-and-spend Democrats and their beloved taxes are wrecking the country, the state and the county. And if you doubt me, here is what President Obama said in his 2014 State of the Union Address:

"Average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that ... too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all."

Posted Online:  March 26, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Why Majority Can't Do Anything it Wants

In a democracy, what are the rights of the majority? Does the minority have any rights? In November of 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and his Democrat cronies in the U.S. Senate answered that question in a way that should send chills up the spine of every American.

Sen. Reid, D.-Nev., and the Democratic majority changed the rules of the Senate by a majority vote. Fifty-two Democrats and independents voted to partially abolish the filibuster. The change reduces the threshold from 60 votes to 51 for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees to lower federal courts.

The Republican minority was unanimous in its opposition to the change. Republicans were joined by three Democrats -- Mark Pryor D-Ark., Joe Manchin, D-W.V., and Carl Levin, D-Mich. The rule change does not apply to Supreme Court nominees, who are still subject to a 60-vote filibuster threshold, or to legislation.

Reid's justification was simple: "The American people believe Congress is broken." Translated: "We are the majority; the majority rules." Further translated: "Power makes right."

Were Reid and the Democrats right? In America, should the majority party be able to run the country by majority vote? Are you for "pure Democracy?" After all, the voters, gave the Democrats a majority in the U.S. Senate.

But go back in time to the first two years of the Obama administration, when the Democrats, besides controlling the presidency and the Senate, also controlled the House. If you believe that 51 (of 100) senators and 218 (of (435) representatives should be able to pass whatever law they deem necessary or convenient, how would you feel if 51 senators and 218 House members passed any of the following laws?

-- Re-instituting slavery?

-- Making it illegal to be a Catholic or a Baptist?

-- Stripping Jews of citizenship?

-- Prohibiting American families from having more than one child?

-- Providing for the sterilization of all illegal immigrants found inside the United States?

-- Making it criminal to be a member of the Republican Party?

-- Directing extermination of all mentally disabled persons?

-- Denying tax exemption to "tea-party affiliated" groups? Or "progressive" groups?

-- Suppressing Fox News and CNN? Or putting monitors in their newsrooms to ensure their news reports are "favorable to the president, his party and his friends"?

If the rule is majority rules, what protects the minority? Where does the minority hide?

Lord Acton has written, "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority..."

Our Founding Fathers tried to give America a maximum of democracy short of mob-ocracy. They feared the "mob." They feared the excesses of "pure democracy." That is why, rather than creating a pure democracy, they created a representative republic of limited powers, and further hamstrung it with a Bill of Rights, calculated to put certain powers beyond the reach of the majority.

Harry Reid, to the contrary, our Constitution is not "broken." It is a document replete with checks and balances -- intentionally built in -- to limit the power of the transient majority and the chief executive so as to safeguard personal liberty and property.

James Madison summed it up in Federalist Paper No. 10: "Democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

And if there is danger in unfettered mob rule, there is equal danger in government by executive orders and decrees. Our Constitution was adopted to bar both.

It is for that reason that no law can be passed by the president. It is for that reason that no law can be passed by the House or Senate alone. Indeed, it is for that reason that Article I, Sec. 1 of the Constitution provides "All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives," and why Congress is granted power "To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."

And it is why the president takes an oath that he "will faithfully execute the office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

And it is why the Constitution and the Bill of Rights bar the president, the Congress and even the courts from engaging in certain actions destructive of the liberty of the individual citizen.

Posted Online:  March 19, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

New Tax Won't Add up to Better Schools

Exactly how much money does it take to educate a student in the public school system?

We are repeatedly told "our kids deserve the best!" But what does the "best" cost? Will another $11.5 million do it? Guarantee it? Moline School District 40 tells us that its 2012 cost per student was $9,488.46.

At the same time, the county can't afford to replace a century-old physically and functionally obsolete courthouse, and is expected to ask for a tax increase to save its nursing home. The American economy stinks, and here comes one more special interest group telling us that our kids will be better off if only we pay an additional 1 percent sales tax. I doubt it!

Moline School District 40's financial statements show:

"Total governmental fund revenues for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, of $86,634,518."

"Total governmental funds expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2012, of $85,333,855."

Not content with that $86.6 million in revenue, a special interest group calling itself, "YES Makes Cents for Students," wants Rock Island County voters to impose a 1 percent sales tax "to provide a better and safer learning environment and to reduce reliance on property taxes." The 1 percent will raise $11.5 million, about $3.8 million of which would go to the Moline schools. In consideration for that increase, the district promises to reduce the real estate tax levy by $400,000. As such, the net tax increase for the people of Moline would be $3.4 million.

In short, the "Yes" people want $90,034,518 to run the Moline schools. The group also blithely claims taking $11.5 million out of the private sector will somehow "boost the local economy." But this isn't $11.5 million for just one year. It's $11.5 million every year!

The Moline School District's financial report also states, "Moline School District No. 40 serves 7,438 students with a 2011-12 total governmental fund budget of $102,556,230." In 2012, there were 47,457 men, women and children in Rock Island County. An $11.5 million tax increase means every man, woman and child's share of the tax will be $78 per year -- year after year.

Therefore, as during the fiscal year ending June 30, 2012, there were 7,438 students, including high school students, in the Moline School system. By simple division, the cost of educating each student was $11,472 ($85,333,855/7438 = $11,472). A $3.4 million tax increase means the Moline schools can spend $90,034,518 or $12,105 per child ($90,035,518/7438 = $12,105). And yes, I question the district's $9,488.46 per student figure.

So, why isn't $86.6 million enough? Why isn't $11,472 per student enough?
According to the district's figures, the 2011-12 student/teacher ratio was 16.15 students per teacher. Taxpayers, therefore, are already spending $184,699 per year to educate the 16.15 kids in each class.

Do the "Yes" people really expect us to believe that if we spend an additional $457 on each Moline child, it will boost the local economy? Provide a better and safer learning environment? At a time when the district barges ahead with the Hamilton School expansion over public objection, how can there be any trust on their promise to permanently reduce real estate taxes? And in the $86.6 million they already have, is there no $3.4 million that could be put to better use?

In the 2012-13 school year, the Moline School District was very "average." It ranked 222 out of 480 (top 46 percent). Only 50 percent of Moline High School graduates meet or exceed the ACT College Readiness Benchmark (defined by an ACT composite of 21 or higher).

Maybe it is time for the public school systems to take an open-minded look at private/Catholic school achievement.

Alleman's 2012-13 enrollment was 457 students. Its student-to-teacher ratio was 17:1. Ninety-eight percent of Alleman's graduating seniors went on to college or joined the military. Over 70 percent of Alleman's 2013 graduates met or exceeded the ACT College Readiness Benchmark. The average composite ACT score for 2012-13 was 23.1.

Alleman's Total Operating Fund Revenues for the 2012-13 year was $2,931,209. Its Total Operating Fund Expenses were $2,959,045. Alleman spent an average of $6,565 per each of its 457 students. And as far as I know, Alleman has football, baseball, softball, soccer, golf, volleyball, tennis, drama, orchestra, etc., just like the "public schools."

Why does it cost $11,472 to educate a student in the public schools, and only $6,565 to do so in a Catholic school? It is rather difficult to argue that Alleman isn't giving more bang for the buck.


Posted Online:  March 09, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
Last Updated: March 10, 2014, 7:40 am
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Quit Your Job, Pursue Your Dream, Let Others Pay

On Jan. 27, 1998, President Bill Clinton, in his State of the Union Speech, said, "A strong nation rests on the rock of responsibility. A society rooted in responsibility must first promote the value of work, not welfare. We can be proud that ... together we ended the old welfare system, and we are now replacing welfare checks with paychecks."

Now 16 years later, on Feb. 4, 2014, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has reported that The Affordable Care Act -- Obamacare -- will lead to about 2.5 million fewer full-time workers by 2024 because those full-time employees are expected to voluntarily forgo working so as to be eligible for government-subsidized health insurance.

If the CBO's report is to be believed, people either are -- or will be -- quitting their jobs or working less hours to get free or heavily subsidized government health insurance. And because to get free health insurance they reduce their earned incomes, they may also become eligible for other welfare benefits. In short, President Obama's Affordable Care Act relegates President Clinton's notion that "a society rooted in responsibility must first promote the value of work, not welfare" to the Democrat Party trash heap.

If you doubt that, consider the Feb. 4 remarks of White House press secretary Jay Carney. Rather than "promote the value of work, not welfare," the Obama administration now pooh-poohs the value of work: "At the beginning of this year, we noted that as part of this new day in health care, Americans would no longer be trapped in a job just to provide coverage for their families, and would have the opportunity to pursue their dreams."

"Work" is no longer a "value;" now a "job" is a "trap." For the administration, Obamacare gives Americans the opportunity to quit working "to pursue their dreams," while at the same time providing them with health insurance and welfare benefits" paid for by their neighbors!

If you think Carney's pronouncement was a slip of the tongue, think again. It is the Democrat "answer" to the fact that Obamacare is killing full-time employment. Look at what James P. Hoffa, Teamsters president, Joseph Hansen, United Food and Commercial Workers president, and and D. Taylor, president of UNITE-HERE have written: "The Affordable Care Act that will destroy the very health and wellbeing of our members along with millions of other hardworking Americans."

Compare Carney's statement to what Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, told Meet the Press on Feb. 9: "The single mom, who's raising three kids (and) has to keep a job because of health care, can now spend some time raising those kids. That's a family value."

Translated, the new Democrat platform is this: "Be a single mother. Have kids. We offer you a choice. Work, or don't work -- or at least, cut back your working hours. If you choose to work, you can support yourself and your children. If you choose not to work, you can have free insurance and other welfare benefits, paid for by your neighbor."

But where is the personal responsibility in having children outside a stable marriage? Where is the personal responsibility in birthing children you can't support? Where is personal responsibility in having children and expecting your neighbor to support them? Where is the personal"responsibility in quitting your job and and taking government handouts to provide for your children?

The president never tires of preaching "fairness." But, why is it "fair" that I should support my children as well as yours, while you support neither and "pursue your dreams?"

What if every American selfishly put him or herself first, quit his or her job, and looked to his or her neighbor to support his children? Why wouldn't it be "fair" if no one worked? Why wouldn't it be "fair" if no one paid taxes? Why wouldn't it be "fair" for everybody to get free Obamacare and welfare benefits? And how long would it be before the whole selfish system collapsed?

If equality is the goal, either all able-bodied person should work, or no able-bodied person should work. It is hardly "fair" for one person to work, while his neighbor sits under a tree "pursuing his dreams."

Once upon a time, within my lifetime, it was a disgrace to go on welfare. Now its encouraged by the government. It's a choice, a lifestyle, a pursuit of dreams.

This administration is the most irresponsible this nation has ever known. Bread and circuses.

Welfare (and I am not talking about earned old-age pensions) should be reserved for the disabled. For the able-bodied, welfare should be short-term and engineered to encourage a return to work. It should not incentivize not working. President Clinton understood that, and took pride in creating jobs and cutting welfare. The Obama administration thinks that it is smarter.
So how well are President Obama's "smarter policies" working? Here is the indictment -- in his own words -- found in his Jan. 28 State of the Union Speech:

"Average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that ... too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren't working at all."


Posted Online:  Feb. 28, 2014, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

In America, is the Income Tax Becoming an Instrument of Plunder?

What is worse? Taxation without representation? Or representation without taxation?

I suggest they are two sides of the same coin. Both are equally bad.
Prior to the American Revolution, citizens of England's colonies in America were adamant against the British Parliament imposing taxes upon them.

They didn't care what tax Parliament sought to impose. The British "constitution" guaranteed that no free man could be taxed without his consent. That consent was given by the member of the House of Commons representing the citizen's district. But American colonists had no representatives in Parliament. As such, they objected to Parliament taxing them.

They opposed the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, and the tax on tea of 1773. The amount of the tax was not the issue. It was the principle. They objected to the power of the English Parliament to impose any tax at all.

This is not to say that the colonists opposed all taxation. They recognized the right of their elected representatives in the colonial assemblies to tax them. But they denied the right of Parliament -- across the ocean -- where they had no representatives to tax them.

In May 1764, Samuel Adams of Boston set forth what came to be the position of the colonies:

"For if our Trade may be taxed, why not our Lands? Why not the Produce of our Lands & every thing we possess or make use of?

"This we apprehend annihilates our Charter Right to govern & tax ourselves -- It strikes our British Privileges, which as we have never forfeited them, we hold in common with our Fellow Subjects who are Natives of Britain: If Taxes are laid upon us in any shape without our having a legal Representation where they are laid, are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?"

The American federal income tax is a graduated tax. Persons with higher incomes pay at greater rates than persons with little or no income. But in America, every citizen gets one vote.

Samuel Adams and our founding fathers realized there was something wrong with people who aren't going to pay the tax voting to impose a tax on other people who will be required to pay the tax. In Adams' time, the danger came from across the sea. Englishmen, who weren't going to pay the tax, were voting to impose a tax that Americans would have to pay.

For the colonists, it was "taxation without representation. For the English, who weren't going to pay the tax, and who had representation in Parliament, it was "representation without taxation." To Americans who would be paying the tax, it was two sides of the same coin.

Once the principle was established, there were no limits. A one-penny tax imposed by Englishmen on Americans in 1765 could be increased to a one-pound tax a year later, and so on.

Two hundred and fifty years later, middle class Americans face a similar threat. According to the Tax Policy Center and Forbes Magazine, 43 percent of American households will pay no federal income tax in 2013. (They point out that this is down from 47 percent in 2009.)

But Americans who pay no taxes have power to elect representatives pledged to raise the income tax on all who do. The difference, of course, is that the Americans who will be taxed, do have representation in Congress. But in the very near future those who do pay income taxes may not have sufficient" representation in Congress to prevent the majority -- the non-paying majority -- from working its will.

Samuel Adams was not a Chicken Little when he worried that small taxes would morph into big taxes over time. The 16th Amendment, which allows for the graduated income tax, became law in 1913. The 1913 income tax created seven tax brackets. Rates ranged from 1 percent to 7 percent.
When a poor man pays 1 percent of his income, it hurts. And if he votes for congressmen pledged to raise taxes, that should include his own taxes. When the federal income tax imposed on middle class Americans is raised, that hurts, too.

The principle should be, if I am willing to raise my neighbor's taxes, I should be willing to raise my own. If I am willing to hurt the guy next door, I should be willing to hurt myself.

But when 43 percent pay no tax, and can vote to elect representatives to raise taxes of their neighbors who pay income taxes, is not Adams query true?

"Are we not reduced from the Character of free Subjects to the miserable State of tributary Slaves?"

Those who see nothing wrong with 43 percent paying no income tax, will respond that those who pay no income tax may still be paying FICA and state, real estate and sales taxes. But the people who are paying federal income taxes are also paying those taxes. And if the "poor" vote to raise FICA or state taxes, they are also sharing the burden. That is fair.

But it simply is not fair to increase the income tax on your neighbor -- generally the biggest tax of them all -- while at the same time not paying that tax yourself. This is converting the graduated income tax into an instrument of plunder.


Posted Online:  Feb. 16, 2014, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Should Americans Go to Jail for Lying?

On June 28, 2012, in U.S. v Alvarez, the United States Supreme Court decided what was, in my humble opinion, among the most important of all the First Amendment Cases it has ever decided.

Alvarez, the defendant, had introduced himself, after being elected to a Water District Board as follows: "I'm a retired marine of 25 years.... (I)n 1987, I was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor."

Alvarez's medal claim was false. He was prosecuted under a law which provides "Whoever falsely represents himself or herself, verbally or in writing, to have been awarded any decoration or medal authorized by Congress for the Armed Forces of the United States ... shall be fined."

The press correctly reported the reversal of Alvarez's conviction, but failed to warn the American people what the Obama administration had argued to sustain the conviction. Had the court accepted the administration's position, the administration would have been handed the tool it needed to shut down and destroy Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, the tea party and any other American it believed to be lying. Had the administration prevailed, it would have been in position to criminalize telling any simple lie.

The Obama administration, in the words of the court, cited to the court "language from some of this Court's precedents to support its contention that false statements have no value and hence no First Amendment protection."

The court added, "In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection."

The government then set out three examples of "false speech" being regulated.

-- False statements made to a government official

-- Perjury

-- False representation that one is speaking on behalf of the government

The court considered and rejected the government's notion that there should be a "new category of unprotected speech," pointing out that in all the examples given by the government, more was involved than a simple false statement. "These restrictions, however, do not establish a principle that all proscriptions of false statements are exempt from exacting First Amendment scrutiny. ... Perjury, for example, undermines the function and province of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments that are the basis of the legal system. ...

"The Government has not demonstrated that false statements generally should constitute a new category of unprotected speech on this basis."

The court set out the logical consequences of the government's position.

"Here the lie was made in a public meeting, but the statute would apply with equal force to personal, whispered conversations within a home. The statute seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings. And it does so entirely without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain.

"Were the Court to hold that the interest in truthful discourse alone is sufficient to sustain a ban on speech, absent any evidence that the speech was used to gain a material advantage, it would give government a broad censorial power unprecedented in this Court's cases or in our constitutional tradition."

Finally, the Court put the kibosh on the administration's reach to limit the right of American's to engage in free speech.

"Although the objectives the Government seeks to further by the statute are not without significance, the Court must, and now does, find the Act does not satisfy exacting scrutiny. ...

"To recite the Government's compelling interests is not to end the matter. The First Amendment requires that the Government's chosen restriction on the speech at issue be 'actually necessary' to achieve its interest.

"The Government has not shown, and cannot show, why counter speech (refutation) would not suffice to achieve its interest. ...

"Once the lie was made public, (Alvarez) was ridiculed online, ... his actions were reported in the press, ... and a fellow board member called for his resignation. ...

"The remedy for speech that is false is speech that is true. This is the ordinary course in a free society. ...

"Freedom of speech and thought flows not from the beneficence of the state but from the inalienable rights of the person."

The Justice Department lawyers who advanced the arguments before the Supreme Court were trained lawyers. It is inconceivable to me that they did not understand that if they could put Alvarez in jail for telling a simple lie, they could use the power of the FCC to silence Limbaugh, Fox News, and all others who disagreed with the policy positions of the Obama administration. Had the court acceded to the administration's position, upon a simple majority vote of Congress, the hated Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 could once again have been made law, and the First Amendment rendered a dead letter.

And who would have had power to decide if a lie had been told? The government, of course!

Posted Online:  Feb. 02, 2014, 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea