'I’m Not the King of the U.S. ... or Am I?'

                    “I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty. Well, it’s not.”  

                                                                               President Obama, Nov. 20, 2014

 

The liberty that Americans have known since 1789 rests on nothing more firm than an understanding.

That understanding is embodied in a brief 15-page document -- the Constitution.

It was an understanding reached by men who feared both one-man rule and mob rule, and who therefore intentionally separated executive, legislative and judicial powers.

It is an understanding reached by the statesmen who feared kings -- kings who claimed to rule by “divine right,” and whose fiat was law.

It is an understanding reached by men who believed that the American people through their elected Congressional representatives ought make their own laws.

It is an understanding under which the President’s law-making power was limited to “recommending  to (Congress for) their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient,” and to vetoing bills passed by Congress, to prevent their enactment.

It is an understanding under which the President’s duty as executive would be “to take care that laws enacted by Congress be faithfully executed.”

It is an understanding that Congressmen, judges, and the president would make a solemn oath to observe the Constitution prior to taking office.  Indeed, the president takes the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I 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.”

In short, the freedom and liberty of every American rests upon nothing more than a fragile understanding” written on a 15-page scrap of paper.

Note that there is nothing in Article VI, Section 2 about executive orders or other presidential fiats being the supreme law of the land.

This president knows that. Indeed, he has said so some 22 times! Here are just two examples:

 “I’m not a king. You know, my job as the head of the executive branch ultimately is to carry out the law. ... When it comes to enforcement of our immigration laws, we’ve got some discretion. We can prioritize what we do. But we can’t simply ignore the law.” -- Jan. 30, 2013

 “The problem is that I’m the president of the United States, I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed. And Congress right now has not changed what I consider to be a broken immigration system. And what that means is that we have certain obligations to enforce the laws that are in place even if we think that in many cases the results may be tragic.” — Feb. 14, 2013.

(Read all 22 of his declarations at speaker.gov/general/22-times-president-obama-said-he-couldn-t-ignore-or-create-his-own-immigration-law#sthash.ErCRBgJk.dpuf.)

Mr. Obama makes many arguments in favor of his immigration executive order.
In the main, they include that:

       -- He needed to act by executive order out of compassion for the illegal immigrants and their children.

     -- He needed to act by “decree” for the good of the American people, because the “system was broken;” i.e., because the House would not pass the Senate’s proposed immigration bill that he favored.

Our Constitution gives a president no power to take the lawn into his hands,  out of  “compassion” for the illegal immigrants and their children, for the good of the American people, or  because Congress was “broken,” or wasn’t acting fast enough to suit him.

“I acted alone for the good of the state,” “I acted alone out of necessity;” these are the traditional justifications of dictators.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants.” William Pitt, the Younger, 1783.

But what is the present necessity? This is the same president who for the first two years of his term had absolute majorities in both houses of Congress, and who could have had Congress pass  immigration reform just as it passed Obamacare.

The president would answer, “To those members of  Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”

But what about, “I’m not a king” or “I’m not the emperor of the United States. My job is to execute laws that are passed”?

Where is it stated the president can take the law into his own hands where Congress fails to act, or to please him?

Mr. Obama also justifies his actions alleging that President Bush also made executive orders pertaining to immigration. USA Today (Nov. 21) debunks that:

“But where the two presidents largely agreed on the principles and policy, they diverged in strategy. While Bush issued a number of small-bore executive orders -- to expedite citizenship for immigrants in the military, or to defer deportation for students affected by Hurricane Katrina -- his speech called on Congress to act.”

It comes to this: if any president can make orders which have the force of law with his pen, then we have lost our republic and have replaced it with a one-man dictatorship. And what the king can do for you today, he can do against you tomorrow!

Posted Online:  Dec, 1, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Is Pope Francis Really an 'Unfaithful Bishop?"

Once again, the readers of this page were treated to dueling op-eds concerning the Catholic Church’s recent Extraordinary Synod on the Family -- and indeed, on the Catholic Church itself: one by Don Wooton and one by the Rev. John Theiryoung, of Aledo.

Mr. W. favors compassion; Father T., favors orthodoxy. Mr. W. believes that Christ will reject no one -- no “sinner” -- who comes to him -- even if the sinner comes without first having repented. Father T. believes Christ would bar the way of those sinners who are divorced and have entered second marriages without the blessing of a priest, until they have repented of their sin -- their “adultery.” Father T. is so certain that he refers to those bishops who would not agree with his view of Catholicism as “unfaithful bishops.” The real question for me, is would Father T. label Pope Francis as an “unfaithful bishop?"

Most Americans probably have never heard of German Cardinal Walter Kasper, the only cardinal Pope Francis invited to speak to the 2014 preparatory two-week session of the Catholic Church’s Extraordinary Synod on the Family. He is author of a controversial proposal that would make it easier for divorced, civilly remarried Catholics to receive Communion. The Cardinal believes Pope Francis backs the measure, but that Pope Francis would not apply it without support from bishops at the 2014 and 2015 sessions of the synod.

The National Catholic Reporter writes that Pope Francis presided at the 2014 session, but never expressed his views, keeping silent throughout the two weeks of discussions, while encouraging the participating bishops “to speak freely.” Indeed in his opening remarks, the Pope said, "Everyone needs to say what one feels duty-bound in the Lord to say, without respect for human considerations, without fear."

By church law, according to the Catholic News Service (CNS), divorced and remarried Catholics are not admitted to Communion unless they obtain an annulment of their first, sacramental marriages or abstain from sexual relations with their new partners, living together as "brother and sister."

In an interview with CSN, Cardinal Kasper said, "I had the impression the pope is open for a responsible, limited opening of the situation, but he wants a great majority of the bishops behind himself. He does not like division within the church and the collegiality of bishops." (catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1404088.htm)

The Cardinal argues, “That, in certain cases, the church can tolerate something that, in itself, is unacceptable: a couple living together as husband and wife in a second union.”

Critics commonly point to several scriptural prohibitions of second marriages, especially Jesus' words in Matthew 19:9: "Whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery."

Cardinal Kasper responds that Matthew 19:9 must be read in the context of Christ’s larger, essential  “message of love, of mercy, of forgiveness and of a new chance."

The cardinal is uncomfortable describing second unions as adulterous, especially in a “pastoral context.”

"If you tell people who live in this way, and [who] do it in a responsible way, [that they are living in]  ‘permanent adultery,’ I think they would feel insulted and offended ... Permanent adultery? It seems to me too strong."

The Cardinal notes that “second unions,” while not equivalent to  “sacramental marriage,” possess many of the "essential elements of marriage and of a family: there is love, there is commitment, there is exclusivity, there is forever, there is prayer life, there are children who are well-educated in Christian life.” Additionally, “there is a public dimension."

Cardinal Kasper expresses "high esteem" for those who abstain from sexual relations” in their canonically irregular marriages, but he questions "whether this can be the path for everybody -- 
especially for younger people? He argues that there is danger in focusing only on the "sexual relations aspect," while ignoring what might be the many other good aspects of the relationship. He suggests that under the “right circumstances,” the church might not merely tolerate sexual relations in an "irregular" union but even consider them good. Such marriages frequently have  “positive values; not only ... negative values.”

Cardinal Kasper believes when love is involved, the church’s first word, in every situation is, “Yes.” He believes the church should say, “I'm happy that God gives you this love and that you can express this love. It's not the fullness (of love) ... but who of us loves God and loves the neighbor as he should do it? We are all on the way."

CNS notes that the cardinal stresses that his proposal is intended only for a small number of people -- serious Catholics -- who would be admitted to Communion only after following a "penitential path" for the failure of their sacramental marriages. The Cardinal notes that when a marriage breaks up, neither partner, more often than not, is totally innocent. And like Pope Francis, who said “Who am I to judge,” the Cardinal says, “It's difficult to judge here."

Cardinal Kasper knows his views are not shared by all Cardinals. Indeed, four important cardinals -- including the Vatican's doctrinal and finance chiefs and the head of its highest court -- recently have published essays arguing against the cardinal's proposal.

So who is right? A Pope who asks, “Who am I to judge?” Or churchmen who believe it is their duty to judge, and to bar people they judge to be sinners from taking the Eucharist?

Who is more Christ-like? Did Christ ever bar any sinner from coming to him? Didn’t Christ say nobody can come to him unless the Father wills it, and that he would reject no one whom the Father had sent? It seems to me that if Christ is the judge of the living and the dead, the Pope is right when he asks, “Who am I to judge?”

Posted Online:  Nov. 19, 2014 1:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Understanding Limits of Executive Orders

There is no constitutional provision that explicitly permits the president to make executive orders. Originally, executive orders were issued to instruct and direct officers of the executive department as to their duties. Over the years, their use has expanded. Nevertheless, to be constitutional, a presidential executive order must still find support either in a grant of power to the president by the Constitution, or in a congressional grant of power to the president by a law enacted by Congress.

As noted, the Constitution does not specifically say that the President has power to make Executive Orders. It does, however, provide that the president is commander-in-chief of the U.S. Army and Navy. Implied within his power as commander-in-chief is the power to direct the Army and Navy. When he sends troops into battle, for example, he does that by an executive order which is a presidential directive.

Some executive orders may be relatively minor as in the case of President Lincoln calling for the observance of a day of Thanksgiving, or of tremendous significance such as Mr. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation, which was entered by President Lincoln acting as commander-in-chief as a war (rebellion suppression) measure. Executive orders, properly entered under the president’s constitutional authority, or under a grant of authority pursuant to congressional law(s), have the force of law. But they are not laws.

In 1950, the U.S. was involved in a “police action” against North Korea. When the steel workers threatened a nationwide strike, which President Truman believed would hurt the war effort, Mr. Truman decided to seize (“federalize”) steel production facilities to keep them operating with management and workers in place to run the plants, but under federal direction.

Mr. Truman argued to the Supreme Court that he acted under the president’s “inherent authority in response to a National Emergency.” That lead to the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which is regarded as the leading case on the president’s use of executive orrders.  The concurring opinion therein, written by Justice Robert Jackson, which has become the most respected of the opinions rendered therein, states

“1. When the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress, his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all [the Constitutional Authority] that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate. In these circumstances, and in these only, may he be said ...  to personify the federal sovereignty. If his act is held unconstitutional under these circumstances, it usually means that the Federal Government, as an undivided whole, lacks power. A seizure executed by the President pursuant to an Act of Congress would be supported by the strongest of presumptions and the widest latitude of judicial interpretation, and the burden of persuasion would rest heavily upon any who might attack it.

“2. When the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority, he can only rely upon his own independent powers, but there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority, or in which its distribution is uncertain. Therefore, congressional inertia, indifference or quiescence may sometimes, at least, as a practical matter, enable, if not invite, measures on independent presidential responsibility. In this area, any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables, rather than on abstract theories of law.

“3. When the President takes measures incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, his power is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter. Courts can sustain exclusive presidential control in such a case only by disabling the Congress from acting upon the subject.  Presidential claim to a power at once so conclusive and preclusive must be scrutinized with caution, for what is at stake is the equilibrium established by our constitutional system.

When Congress passed the Affordable Care Act, it said that  the employer mandate shall take effect on Jan. 1, 2014. The president’s action extending (amending) that date is “incompatible with the expressed will of Congress, and his power is at its lowest ebb” -- unless the act grants the president that power.

The same is true when Congress passes a law that establishes a prescribed mode for immigration.  Unless an act of Congress grants the president power to establish a different mode, the president has no power to prescribe an alternative mode.

The same president who can override such laws, can override the will of the voters at the next election and decide that he shall remain in office because he thinks what he is doing will help families across the country. Or because it’s good for workers, employers and the middle class.



Posted Online:  Nov. 15, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

 

Who Makes Laws, Congress or the President?

How would you like living in a United States where the laws are made by one man. Where laws are made by executive order? This isn’t a mere hypothetical. President Obama has announced that this is how he means to proceed.

On July 30, the U.S. House authorized Speaker John Boehner to sue President Obama over his 2013 decision to “rewrite” the Affordable Care Act  (Obamacare)  to postpone for one year (from Jan. 1, 2014) the employer mandate. The ACA requires that all firms with more than 50 full-time-equivalent employees -- defined as 120 hours per month -- offer government-certified health coverage to their workers, or pay a significant fine.

The president was derisive in his response to the speaker’s suit (whitehouse.gov/photos-and-video/video/2014/07/31/president-signs-fair-pay-and-safe-workplace-executive-order#transcript):

“[L]ast night ...  [t]hey got together in the House of Representatives. The Republicans, and voted to sue me for taking the actions that we are doing to help families.

“One of the main objections that’s the basis of this suit is us making a temporary modification to the health care law that they said needed to be modified.

“So they criticized a provision; we modify it to make it easier for business to transition; and that’s the basis for their suit.

“But it’s not going to stop me from doing what I think needs to be done in order to help families all across this country.

“The executive order I’ll sign in a few minutes is one that’s good for workers, it’s good for responsible employers, and it’s good for the middle class.

“We need a Congress that’s willing to get things done.  We don’t have that right now.  In the meantime, I’m going to do whatever I can, wherever I can, whenever I can, to keep this country’s promise alive for more and more of the American people.”

So, where in the Constitution is the president granted power to make, amend, suspend the effective date, repeal or refuse to enforce a law? It is one thing to say Congress needs to amend or repeal a law; it is an entirely different thing to say the president should take the law into his own hands.
The Constitution states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

If all legislative power is vested in Congress, then Congress alone has power to enact laws and to amend or repeal laws. If all legislative power is vested in Congress, then no legislative power is vested in the president (save the power to suggest legislation and veto bills subject to override).
Governing by executive order “is governing by decree.” Tyrants rule by decree, not American presidents.

Once Congress passes a law the president has no power to amend it, suspend its effective date or repeal it, unless he is specifically granted that power by Congress by law. Indeed, his oath is:  “I do solemnly swear ... that I 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.”
His Article II  “Constitutional duty” is to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed;” not to rule by decree for the benefit of the “workers,” for “responsible employers,” or for any class (whether middle, upper or lower).

I have no confidence Speaker Boehner’s lawsuit will succeed. The House has a clear, certain Constitutional remedy short of impeachment to control a lawless president. It controls the purse; it can refuse to fund the president’s alleged illegalities. The fact that the House lacks guts to defund, doesn’t justify its lawsuit. The real victim of presidential lawlessness isn’t the House. It’s the American people. They pay. And only a handful of citizens have the resources, even if indeed they have the standing,  to sue the president. With a feckless House and Senate, President Obama can rule by decree -- as if the Constitution didn’t exist.

So does the President have power to make executive orders? Of course, he does. Since the beginning of the republic, presidents have made executive orders to govern the conduct of officers and employees within the executive department.

President Truman, as commander-in-chief, ordered the end of segregation within our Armed Forces. President Lincoln, as a war measure, issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

But it is one thing to make executive orders to govern the conduct of people in the executive department; it is an entirely different thing to make executive orders to govern the conduct of the American people.

So when can the president ever make executive orders with the force of law to govern the American people? See my next op-ed.


Posted Online:  Nov. 8, 2014 12:00 am - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Can't Candidates Answer the Question Asked?

In the Oct. 5 Viewpoints, Rep. Cheryl Bustos, D-East Moline, and challenger Bobby Schilling, a Colona Republican, were asked a simple question: "Can you offer 10 specific recommendations for tackling the nations economic problems?"

Neither did.

Mr. Schilling, rather than making the "10 specific recommendations," requested, wrote:
"The most important thing ... for a better economy (is) to end gridlock ... to elect ... Congress(men) ... totally focused on making a positive contribution.

"In 2010, I ran for Congress because I was deeply concerned. ...

"I refused to participate in the congressional pension.... I cut my budget by 11 percent. ...

"I fought against government shutdowns. My opponent had six opportunities to avoid last year's shutdown. ...

"It is very important for economic expansion to cut runaway government spending.
"In my two years in Congress we succeeded in spending fewer dollars. ...

"I ... worked in a bipartisan manner ... to maintain and grow ... the Rock Island Arsenal. We also worked together to replace the Interstate 74 bridge. ...


"Economic expansion (is) critical to ... sustain ... funding of essential government programs. ... we need to stop wasting so much of our budget on interest on the debt ....

"We need to fundamentally simplify our tax code to ... reward work, saving, investment, and job creation. ...

"We need tort reform to stop frivolous lawsuits. ...

"I have offered five ... modifications to Obamacare to lower health care costs and stop the parts of Obamacare that ... destroy thousands of jobs.

"We need a robust energy policy -- more domestic energy ... and ... ... incentives to produce ... renewable energy ... so we can become the leading exporter of renewable energy." This will lead, he said to prosperity in the decades to come.

So, did Mr. Schilling answer the question asked? Are these "10 specific recommendations?"

Perhaps on simplifying the tax code, modifying Obamacare and a robust energy policy.

And did Rep. Bustos make the "10 specific recommendations requested?" She wrote:

"1. I introduced the Government Waste Reduction Act ... that would save ... billions of dollars by eliminating duplicative services.

"2. The federal government currently pays billions of dollars to dead people... My ... Improper Payments Agency Cooperation Enhancement Act, which recently passed the Senate, will put an end to this ... wasteful spending. ...

"3. I'm a ... sponsor of the No Budget, No Pay Act.. .. We cannot solve our nation's fiscal problems on the backs of working families. Our nation's economy will be strongest when we have a ... thriving middle class....

"4. I support the Bring Jobs Home Act, which would give businesses a tax credit for creating jobs in America while ending tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs....

"5. I introduced the Access to Education and Training Act, which would allow students who receive Pell grants to take advantage of them year-round. ...

"6. I also support the Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act to allow students to refinance their existing loans. ...

"7. When the president visited Galesburg, I successfully urged him to bring the nation's first-of-its-kind Digital Manufacturing Lab to Illinois....

"8. I also worked across the aisle with Sens. Durbin and Kirk ... to pass legislation to improve our nation's locks and dams using public-private partnerships.. ...

"9. I launched Partnering for Illinois' Economic Future with experts from the University of Illinois and other economic development, education and business leaders. ....

"10. I joined "No Labels," an organization made up of Democrats and Republicans ... united in the goal of breaking congressional gridlock....."

Like Mr. Schilling, Rep. Bustos didn't answer the question. Instead, she re-wrote the question to tell what she has done during her two years in Congress; how she has sponsored or introduced a bunch of bills. She doesn't say that any have become law. (One game representatives from both parties play is to sponsor or introduce bills with glorious sounding names to show constituents they are working diligently: e.g., "A Bill to Cure all Evils in the Known World." These bills never pass, and would be useless if they did.)

In one respect, however, Rep. Bustos answer was superior to Mr. Schillings: She demonstrated she can count to 10!

So what might the candidates have said? Here are four specific recommendations John F. Kennedy made:

1. No tax increases. They will not solve our deficits or our economic problems.
2. Full employment. It is the most important thing we can do to tackle the nations economic problems.
3. When more people work, the government collects more taxes.
4. If the government collects more taxes (and if it can avoid spending increases), it will have money to cut the deficit and fund existing programs.

Then the candidates might have added:

-- We need to get the work force participation rate well above 62.7 percent.
-- We need to repeal or amend laws that encourage owners to turn full-time jobs into part-time jobs, or to lay off employees.


Posted Online:  Oct. 17, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Obama on Economy: Oblivious? Delusional? Lying?

On Oct. 2, President Obama told an audience at Northwestern University, "It is indisputable that our economy is stronger today than when I took office. ... By every economic measure, we are better off now than when I took office."

Sadly, that statement is demonstrably false. And unless the president is oblivious to inconvenient economic facts or delusional, it is a demonstrable lie.

In the movie, "Truman," President Truman utters the line, "I'm just the man holding this office. If I dirty it, the dirt doesn't leave with me when I go, it stays here to rub off on whoever comes after me from now on." The line may be pure Hollywood, but that doesn't make it any less true.

It is not "indisputable" that the American economy is "stronger today than when he took office." Below are facts from non-partisan sources which clearly indicate that what the president told the American people is far less than the whole truth.

1. In January 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the labor force participation rate was 66.2 percent. In 2014, rather than improving, that rate declined to 62.8 percent.

2. In 2008, 28 million individuals receiving food stamps (annually); in 2014 the number has increased to 47 million.

3. In 2007, according to the Census Bureau publication "Income and Poverty in the U.S: 2013," the median income in the U.S. (50th percentile) was $51,939. This is a decline from 2007, when the median income was $56,436.

4. The Real Median Household income for Asians dropped from $72,000 in 2008 to $67,000 in 2013. For whites, it dropped from $61,000 in 2008 to $58,000 in 2013. For Hispanics, from $42,000 in 2008 to $41,000 in 2013. For blacks it dropped from $38,000 in 2008 to $34.5 in 2013, according to the Census Bureau publication "Income and Poverty in the U.S: 2013."

5. According to the same report, the "number in poverty" rose form 35 million in 2008, to 45.3 million in 2013.

6. According to the same report, the Annual Average Consumer Price Index for 2008 was 316.2. It increased to 342.1 in 2013. That represents a 7.6 percent decline in household purchasing power.

7. In 2008, 11.8 percent of families had total income under $15,000; in 2013, 12.7 percent. In 2008, 12.6 percent of families had incomes between $50K and $75K; in 2013, 11.9 percent of families. In 2008, 12.6 percent of families had income between $75K and $100K; in 2013, 11.9 percent. In 2008, $13.3 percent of families had income between $100K and $150K; in 2013, 12.4 percent.

8. The Department of Labor publishes statistics showing full-time vs. part-time employment, for persons aged 16 and over; 35 hours or more is considered "full time." The focus is on "total hours worked." Full-time status may result from multiple part-time jobs.

a. Of those employed age 16 and over, 83 percent had full-time employment in 2008; 81.3 percent in 2014. In 2008, 17 percent of workers had part-time employment; in 2014, the number has risen to 18.6 percent.

b. The Employment Cumulative Changes since 2007 shows full-time employment (ages 25-54) has decreased by 5 percent. Part-time employment has increased 0.4 percent (advisorperspectives.com/dshort/commentaries/Full-Time-vs-Part-Time-Employment.php).
Unless Mr. Obama is oblivious to inconvenient economic facts or delusional, there is only one reason why a president would say, "It is indisputable that our economy is stronger today than when I took office."

He wants to keep his party in power and he is willing to lie to achieve his goal. The Watergate plumbers did what they did to insure President Nixon's re-election. We impeached President Nixon because he lied to cover-up what had been done. I consider President Truman the greatest president of my lifetime (I was too young to know FDR) precisely because he refused to lie. Here's something President Truman actually did say:

"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."

It is one thing for the government to mislead our enemies. It is another thing for the government to mislead the American people for partisan advantage. If we can't believe the president when he talks about how the economy has improved during his tenure in office, how can we believe him when he tells us what we need to do to destroy the Islamic State (ISIS), to protect the homeland from terrorism and Ebola?


Posted Online:  Oct. 10, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea

Bustos, Schilling Ignore Best Job-creator: the Private Sector

 

In Viewpoints [last] Sunday, our two candidates for Congress in the 17th District, Democrat U.S. Rep. Cheri Bustos, and Republican challenger Bobby Schilling, stated the action they would take to help create and retain jobs in the area.

What struck me in what each wrote was that both seemed clueless as to how jobs are created in America. Both seemed wedded to the notion that jobs are created by "government spending." The programs of both harkened back to the 1930's New Deal programs of FDR. Neither wrote of what they would do to facilitate the creation of private sector jobs.

Rep. Bustos spoke of Cheri on Shifts, the Make it in America initiative, her "one-on-one visits," and the new Goose Island Digital Manufacturing Lab which was funded by the U.S. Department of Defense (according to U.S. Sen Dick Durbin, D-Ill.).

She also talked about the opening of the Thomson prison facility, which is expected to create "1,100 good paying jobs," and upgrading "aging locks and dams along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers."
Mr. Schilling touted his efforts to keep the Rock Island Arsenal going strong, and his belief in the need to "invest in public infrastructure," such as "transportation networks," highways and the Interstate 74 bridge.

Do not misunderstand me. The jobs at Goose Island, at Thomson and at the Arsenal are important. But to create them, the government taxes all of us to raise the money needed to pay the salaries and their related fringe and retirement benefits.

The advantage of jobs created by the private sector is that you and I are not taxed and are not paying the salaries with their related fringe benefits and retirement benefits.

When John Q. Public opens a yoga studio in downtown Moline, he pays the salaries, fringe and retirement benefits allotted to himself and his employees.

To understand the significant difference, consider this:

If there were only 11 American taxpayers, and if all earned $110,000 per year, each would have to be taxed $10,000 per year to pay the salary of one government employee being paid $110,000 per year. If two of the 11 were government employees, all 11 would have to be taxed $20,000 per year. If all 11 were government employees, each would have to be taxed 100 percent of his 2014 salary to pay his 2015 salary of $110,000. And of course, the above figures take no account of fringe and retirement benefits!
There is no question but that we must have arsenals for our nation's defense and road and bridges. Similarly, there is no question that the people who work in our arsenals and who build our roads and bridges work at necessary jobs; good jobs.

But there is a limit to how many people can be on the government payroll before the system crashes. Putting it another way, there is a limit as to how much people working in the private sector can be taxed to support people working in the public sector. At some point in time, taxes on the private sector make it unprofitable for the private sector to remain in business and pay taxes. Neither candidate discusses that.

The key issue in job creation is not how to create public sector jobs; rather, it is how to create private sector jobs. Public sector jobs are funded by taxation. True private sector jobs are funded by ordinary people who go into business and the people who work in the businesses; not by the government.
Any candidate for Congress discussing "jobs" needs to address not only government stimulus and public works programs, but how to get the private sector going.

President Obama and the Democrats have had six years to get the economy going. Unemployment is decreasing only because people who don't have jobs and have quit looking for work are erased from the unemployment roles, and moved to the role for people who are no longer looking for work. It is a cruel shell game.

Some people believe our Internal Revenue Code is about raising money to finance government operations. Others believe it is about income redistribution.

In either case, the best way to increase revenues is to increase the labor force participation rate from 62.8 percent. It is not complicated. If 62 people pay $1 each in federal income taxes, the government gets $62. If 95 people pay $1 each, the government gets $95.

The question that these two candidates need to be discussing is, how do we increase job creation in the private sector? Small businesses create most of the jobs. Are they over-regulated? Are they being taxed out of existence? What needs to be done to encourage them to hire? The labor force participation rate, according to Mr. Schilling, is at a 36-year low.. If 62.8 percent is too low, what are you going to do, Mr. Schilling and Rep. Bustos, to make it easier for private businesses to succeed and hire?

Government stimulus is good; it can create jobs. But it is dependent on taxation. Tax too much and you depress the private sector. One-hundred percent of Americans can't work for the government.

Posted Online:  Oct. 3, 2014, 11:00 pm - Quad-Cities Online
by John Donald O'Shea

Copyright 2014
John Donald O'Shea