On Taxes, Who is JFK's True Heir? Trump; not Clinton

Either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump will be our next president.

Mrs. Clinton wants to raise federal income tax rates. Mr. Trump wants to lower them. Mrs. Clinton claims Mr. Trump's plan will increase annual deficits, and increase the national debt -- the total of our annual deficit -- which as I write has exceeded $22 trillion. Mr. Trump believes lowering tax rates will, paradoxically, raise government revenues.

Why?


His first premise is that when personal and corporate incomes rise, those individuals and corporations pay more in federal income taxes. For purposes of illustration, ignore Mr. Trump's tax plan, and consider what happens when an individual's income doubles under the present tax code.

Last year, if you were a single woman and your taxable income was $100,000, you paid $21,064 in federal income tax. If you were single and your taxable income was $200,000, you paid a federal income tax of $46,606.25. You paid that much because once your taxable income reached $189,300, your tax rate increased from 28 percent to 33 percent. (At a net income of $411,500, the tax rate increased to 35 percent; at $413,200 the tax rate increased to 39.6 percent -- the highest rate.)

Mr. Trump's second premise is that it is impossible for a nation to be prosperous unless its taxpayers are also prosperous. The corollary to that is a taxpayer's prosperity is reduced in direct proportion to the amount of taxes paid. A taxpayer with a $200,000 per year net income who pays a federal income tax of $46,606.25 will be less prosperous if you increase his taxes by $10,000 (and the government will be $10,000 more prosperous).

Mr. Trump looks at the American economy, and he accurately sees wage stagnation. A Dec. 9, 2015, Pew Research Center study confirms his belief.

According to that study, the median income, in 2014 dollars, scaled to reflect a family of three in the year 2000 was: Lower class, $26,496; middle class, $76,819; upper class, $180,769. The median income for the same family in 2014 was: Lower class, $24,474; middle class, $73,392; upper class, $174,626.

Mr. Trump would contend that the vaunted "Obama recovery," is a recovery in name only -- political spin. And given wage stagnation, he sees that increasing the tax rates on "the rich," as Mrs. Clinton proposes, won't eliminate the deficit. There simply are not enough rich people.

You could tax "the rich" at a rate of 100 percent, and rather than eliminating the deficit, you might well push the country from recession to depression.


Accordingly, Mr. Trump's third premise is that the only way to cure the deficit and pay down the national debt is by raising the earnings of rich, middle class and poor alike.

When incomes go up, tax collections go up. If our single woman's income increases from $100,000 to $110,000, she pays an extra $2,800 in taxes. If a person on welfare gets a job that pays enough for him to have a taxable income, that also increases tax revenues. And when the rich and corporations have more income, they historically expand their businesses and hire.

In December of 1962, John F. Kennedy addressed the Economic Club of New York and said:

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrents to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. This administration pledged itself ... to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes. ...

"Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power; it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. ... To increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures, but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures."

If Jack Kennedy was right, Trump is right and Hillary is wrong.


Posted: QCOline.com October 14, 2016


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

School Tax Promoters Are Like Spoiled Children

For the fourth time since 2009, Rock Island County voters will be asked to approve a 1 percent sales tax to be “used exclusively for school facility purposes.”

Voters defeated similar proposals in 2009, 2014 and 2015.

According to an Aug. 6 Dispatch-Argus article, “School officials say passage of a 1 percent sales tax is critical ... Along with infrastructure work needed in the districts, school officials say there is a potential loss of students and families to Scott County in Iowa which already has a 1 percent sales tax dedicated to improve district facilities.”


Business owner Pryce T. Boeye points out that what school officials say is misleading. “What they forget to mention is, with the school sales tax in Iowa, the sales tax is a total of 7 percent. ... That’s already built into their sales tax.” (Mr. Boeye is not an enemy of education; he serves as a director of the Rock Island-Milan Education Foundation).

What Mr. Boeye is saying is that the general sales tax in Moline and Rock Island is already 7.5 percent, but that each city already collects an additional 1.5 percent on sales of liquor and prepared foods. People who buy food at Mr. Boeye’s Hungry Hobos already pay a 9 percent Illinois sales tax. If the school officials get their way, it will be 10 percent. But the county is also asking the voters to pass its half cent referendum!

The bottom line is this: The Scott County sales tax totals 7 percent; if these two referenda are approved, the total general sales tax in Moline and Rock Island will be 9 percent; and the sales tax on liquor and prepared foods will be increased to 10.5 percent -- 3.5 percent greater than in Scott County.

In his Aug. 12 letter to the editor, Lawrence Bay, of Port Byron, writes, “The arguments for and against the 1 percent school sales tax remain as they were when the voters wisely rejected this tax in 2009, 2014 and 2015. It should again be rejected for the same reasons.”

But there are additional good reasons for voting “no” on the School’s 1 percent sales tax.

Look at your 2015 (payable in 2016) Rock Island County real estate tax bill. Mine shows a total tax rate of 9.3085, with a school tax rate of 5.1120.

That means 54.9 percent of my real estate taxes already go to Moline schools! District 40 already gets more of my real estate taxes than Moline, Rock Island County, and Black Hawk College -- indeed, everybody else combined! And whatever tax we pay to support the schools is never enough.

During the fiscal year ending June 30, 2015, District 40 spent $97,748,395 on “Instruction, Support Services, Tuition Paid to Other Districts, and Debt Service,” to educate 7,370 students. That’s $13,263 per student. And that doesn’t include pensions.

We are told by school officials proceeds from the 1 percent sales tax will be “used exclusively for school facility purposes.” So why are they short of money for facility purposes? Is it possible that Moline District 40 is short of money because they just spent $17 million to “upgrade” Hamilton School (and closed Garfield and Ericsson)?

Mr. Boeye gives an alternative answer: “By and large, money is going to salaries, benefits, pensions. If facilities are a priority, they need to make that a point in labor negotiations. ... I think unions might be open to that.” Really? Good luck!

If you think, you are undertaxed, this is what the Huffington Post wrote on Feb. 25:

“Illinoisans pay a lot in property taxes compared to the rest of the nation -- the state has the second-highest property taxes in the country, almost double the national average. But what you pay depends on where you live, and some residents are spending a lot more than others ... “Rock Island County, IL: Median Home Value: $113,800; Median Annual Property Tax Payment: $2,455.”

As previously stated, 54.9 percent of our real estate taxes already go to the schools.

So, the schools want a 1 percent sales tax increase. The county wants a half cent. Speaker Madigan, D-Chicago, wants to raise the Illinois income tax from 3.75 percent to at least 5 percent.

Rock Island County has already increased real estate taxes 16 percent. Sewer and water rates are up in the cities.

It’s like dealing with spoiled children!


Posted: QCOline.com October 7, 2016


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Presidential Election - the Ultimate Jury Trial

I recently received and watched a 16.6 minute YouTube video featuring Dr. Ted Noel, the former director of NovaMed Surgery Center in Orlando, Fla.


Dr. Noel states up front that he is not Hillary Clinton's medical doctor, has not examined her, and that he is not a Hillary Clinton supporter. Based on videos of Hillary Clinton since 2005, he concludes that she suffers from Parkinson's Disease, and for that reason, that she is unfit to serve as president.


Snopes writes to debunk what Dr. Noel has said; they could be correct. But watch Dr. Noel's video yourself: You judge: youtube.com/watch?v=Zr1IDQ2V1eM



Hillary Clinton is 68 years of age. In her Sept. 26 debate with Donald Trump she looked healthy. She evidenced none of the problems shown in Dr. Noel's video. Her own doctor, who treated her after the 9/11 incident, states that her stumble/collapse into the limo on that date was caused by pneumonia.


But Hillary Clinton's health is not just a private matter. She wants to be our president. Mrs. Clinton correctly argues that the American people need to see Mr. Trump's tax returns. Given the history of Mrs. Clinton's health issues detailed in Dr. Noel's video, full disclosure of Mrs. Clinton's medical records from and after her fall in 2005 is as much or more important as disclosure of Mr. Trump's tax returns.


The bottom line is this: Every American has a right to draw his own conclusions as to Mrs. Clinton's physical ability to execute the office of the presidency. Those conclusions can be reasonable conclusions, only if the voters have all the relevant facts; not merely those Mrs. Clinton chooses to dribble out.


Jurors in civil and criminal cases are "judges of the facts." They make the ultimate medical conclusions, e.g., "diagnoses," every day in our courts. Observable facts of the plaintiff's condition are set before them: e.g., Mr. Jones fell, was hospitalized; had no history of seizures before the fall, and has seizured since, etc. The doctors ("expert witnesses") give their opinions as to those facts. (Note: those doctors need not be the "treating physician." They can be any doctor whose training or experience enables him to assist the jurors in their determination.) But in the end, it is the "12 plumbers" who decide if the plaintiff seizures and why the plaintiff seizures. And the nature and extent of plaintiff's disability.


When It comes to electing a president, the voters are the "jurors." It is the duty of the candidates to make full disclosure of their falls, stumbles, collapses, strokes, blood clots, periods of convalescence and disability, etc. Once they do, the "experts" can voice their opinions. But the ultimate decision on the candidates mental and physical fitness is for the voters.


Dr. Noel's video documents Mrs. Clinton falling on three different occasions, beginning in 2005; the worst/last occurred in December 2012 when she suffered a concussion, followed by a blood clot. It took her six months to recover. A still photo shows her having great difficulty climbing six typical porch steps. Another shows staff having to assist her as she attempts to enter the back seat of a limo. More recently, on Sept. 11, 2016, she stumbled/collapsed again. Other videos have emerged showing her suffering prolonged coughing spasms. She travels with a physician at her side.


The above events were all photographed or caught on tape. They cannot be denied. But were there others? If so, how serious were they?



Hillary has previously told the FBI that after her 2012 fall/concussion she had memory loss, a blood clot and could only work part-time. Why?


In January 2013, Huma Abedin, Hillary's closest adviser, wrote in an email that Hillary is "often confused." Julian Assange ("Wikileaks") has released emails in which Mrs. Clinton directed her staff to research drugs to treat Parkinson's. Why?


It is critically important that Hillary Clinton be examined by a group of impartial doctors -- not including her own personal doctor. Donald Trump should do the same.


Being president is the most grueling job in the world. Every military recruit gets a physical; why not the commander-in-chief?


(Note: In a longer 31.5 minute video interview (at: youtube.com/watch?v=8XtIzH9HoC8), Dr. Noel lists numerous symptoms on which he bases his medical conclusions.)




Posted: QCOline.com September 30, 2016


Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

Nothing Wise, Safe about What Clinton Calls 'Smart Power'

On December 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton spoke at Georgetown University, saying:

“This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change -- change the prospects for peace.”

When I first heard this speech, my first reaction was, this is inane; did she really say those things?

Twenty months later, I feel the same.

What she said was inane. Banal blather.

In the 20 months that have passed, America has seen its enemies in action.

We have watched North Korea develop nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles.

We have been trying to “empathize” with the North Korean dictators since the days of Bill Clinton to convince North Korea to give up its goal of having nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. We have provided them with bribes galore in the form of food and energy. In return, they have covertly built their WMDs and missiles, and most recently have fired three off -- sticking them up the noses of President Obama and the other gathered world leaders.

Has empathizing with their point of view induced them to forego their weapon’s programs? Has showing respect for the pot-bellied dictator advanced peace and security? Provided solutions?

Just this last week we have seen an Afghan immigrant who we brought to America and gave citizenship to, plant a number of bombs designed to kill and maim innocent American men, women and children. Earlier we saw two brothers plant pressure-cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon which killed and tore of the legs off nearby children.

How did we fail to show respect for them?

How does one understand the perspective and point of view of someone who sneaks around and plants bombs on street corners designed to slaughter women and children? Why would anyone in their right mind empathize with such miscreants?

In Africa, Boko Haran kidnaps 300 young teenage girls, and either forces them into marriages or sells them off as slaves. Do you really feel showing respect for these barbarians will advance 21st century peace?

Change the prospects for peace?

Would you empathize with someone who did this to your 11-year-old daughter?

Do you really believe we should try, so far as possible, to empathize with Boko Haran’s perspective and point of view?


In recent months we have employed “smart power” in our negotiations with Iran.

We have ended sanctions, paid them billions of dollars and paid ransom. And to what effect?

They make mock runs at our naval vessels, threaten to shoot down our airplanes, take more hostages, and provide support to terrorist groups around the world.

Negotiations make sense.

Real peace is better than war. But when your enemy uses negotiations to prepare for war, or to take steps that make America far less secure (such as N. Korea building WMDs and ballistic missile), then Mrs. Clinton’s “smart power” is delusion.

Or do you really believe that negotiating with ISIS will deter them from beheading captives, burning captured pilots in cages, or inducing ISIS wannabees in our country from killing Americans in our shopping malls?

We are told that Mrs. Clinton is the most qualified person ever to run for president.

That is not what her “smart power speech” indicates to me.

By John Donald O'Shea
Sep 23, 2016

It’s Killers, not Jurors who Inflict Cruel, Unusual Punishment

An op-ed writer, unlike a sitting judge, can assume that a defendant will be found guilty.

I am doing precisely that to make my points.

Two nurse practitioners, Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill, “the sweetest, most gentle women you can imagine” were found knifed to death in their rural Holmes County Mississippi home on Aug. 25.

Their life’s work was to provide flu shots, insulin and other medical care for children and adults who couldn’t afford it. Sister Paula had served the poor of the county for 30 years. Their Lexington clinic provided about 25 percent of all the medical care in the county of 18,000. “They’d help anybody they could help. They’d give you the shirt off their backs.”

The stark reality is this: These two nuns were deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Their murderer arrogated unto himself the offices of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The nuns were provided no attorneys. They were not allowed to confront nor cross-examine their accuser in open court. They received no trial consistent with the law of the land. They were executed in a summary fashion. For them: no fair trial; no appeal; no constitutional rights.

Now Rodney Earl Sanders has been arrested and charged with two counts of capital murder. It appears Sanders was released from prison in December 2015 after serving nine months for a felony driving under the influence conviction -- as per the Mississippi DOC. Their records are said to show that he also did prison time from the mid 1980s to early 1990s for armed robbery.

If Sanders is indeed prosecuted, all the rights he denied to Sisters Margaret and Paula will be lavished upon him. And if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, and if Sanders is convicted and sentenced to death, a phalanx of lawyers and other “enlightened individuals” will trip over themselves to ensure that Sanders escapes the death penalty.

They’ll argue the death penalty is “too random.” That one murderer escapes the death sentence while the next murderer gets it. They will call any method of execution, “cruel and unusual punishment!”

When his case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be heard by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonja Sotomayer and Elana Kagen -- “progressive” judges who are certain that their own notions of “cruel and unusual punishment” are superior to those of the men who wrote and adopted our Constitution.

Sander’s appeal would afford them one more opportunity to abolish the death penalty -- not withstanding the fact that the men who wrote the Constitution specifically acknowledged that the state could impose the death penalty, as long as trial was pursuant to indictment, and due process was accorded the defendant.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate in every murder case, or even in this case. But in some cases, the FACTS of the case justify imposition of the death penalty.

And because whether the death penalty should be imposed is preeminently a “fact question,” and since juries (not judges) determine questions of fact under our Constitution, the question of whether the death penalty is appropriate in light of all the facts of the case is a question for ordinary citizens and not judges (government functionaries).

A 12-man jury brings 12 different judgments to all the great issues: Can the murderer be rehabilitated? Will imprisonment adequately protect the public? Is death proportionate to defendant’s offense? Will life deprecate the enormity of the murder? Considering the facts, Is death deserved?

The people of the U.S., of course, can amend the Constitution to abolish the death penalty. But the notion that judges can effectively declare two express provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, is nothing more than judicial fiat, judicial usurpation, and judicial misconduct.

If the facts are as alleged, it seems to me Sanders is an excellent candidate for any usual form of execution. His sentence will be far less “random” than the death penalties he imposed upon his victims. And perhaps because I presided over so many jury trials, I’ve come to trust juries more than I trust judges.


Posted: QCOline.com September 9, 2016

Copyright 2016, John Donald O'Shea

It’s Killers, not Jurors who Inflict Cruel, Unusual Punishment

An op-ed writer, unlike a sitting judge, can assume that a defendant will be found guilty.

I am doing precisely that to make my points.

Two nurse practitioners, Sister Margaret Held and Sister Paula Merrill, “the sweetest, most gentle women you can imagine” were found knifed to death in their rural Holmes County Mississippi home on Aug. 25.

Their life’s work was to provide flu shots, insulin and other medical care for children and adults who couldn’t afford it. Sister Paula had served the poor of the county for 30 years. Their Lexington clinic provided about 25 percent of all the medical care in the county of 18,000. “They’d help anybody they could help. They’d give you the shirt off their backs.”

The stark reality is this: These two nuns were deprived of life and liberty without due process of law. Their murderer arrogated unto himself the offices of prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The nuns were provided no attorneys. They were not allowed to confront nor cross-examine their accuser in open court. They received no trial consistent with the law of the land. They were executed in a summary fashion. For them: no fair trial; no appeal; no constitutional rights.

Now Rodney Earl Sanders has been arrested and charged with two counts of capital murder. It appears Sanders was released from prison in December 2015 after serving nine months for a felony driving under the influence conviction -- as per the Mississippi DOC. Their records are said to show that he also did prison time from the mid 1980s to early 1990s for armed robbery.

If Sanders is indeed prosecuted, all the rights he denied to Sisters Margaret and Paula will be lavished upon him. And if the prosecutor seeks the death penalty, and if Sanders is convicted and sentenced to death, a phalanx of lawyers and other “enlightened individuals” will trip over themselves to ensure that Sanders escapes the death penalty.

They’ll argue the death penalty is “too random.” That one murderer escapes the death sentence while the next murderer gets it. They will call any method of execution, “cruel and unusual punishment!”

When his case gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, it would be heard by Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonja Sotomayer and Elana Kagen -- “progressive” judges who are certain that their own notions of “cruel and unusual punishment” are superior to those of the men who wrote and adopted our Constitution.

Sander’s appeal would afford them one more opportunity to abolish the death penalty -- not withstanding the fact that the men who wrote the Constitution specifically acknowledged that the state could impose the death penalty, as long as trial was pursuant to indictment, and due process was accorded the defendant.

Do not misunderstand me. I do not believe that the death penalty is appropriate in every murder case, or even in this case. But in some cases, the FACTS of the case justify imposition of the death penalty.

And because whether the death penalty should be imposed is preeminently a “fact question,” and since juries (not judges) determine questions of fact under our Constitution, the question of whether the death penalty is appropriate in light of all the facts of the case is a question for ordinary citizens and not judges (government functionaries).

A 12-man jury brings 12 different judgments to all the great issues: Can the murderer be rehabilitated? Will imprisonment adequately protect the public? Is death proportionate to defendant’s offense? Will life deprecate the enormity of the murder? Considering the facts, Is death deserved?

The people of the U.S., of course, can amend the Constitution to abolish the death penalty. But the notion that judges can effectively declare two express provisions of the Constitution unconstitutional, is nothing more than judicial fiat, judicial usurpation, and judicial misconduct.

If the facts are as alleged, it seems to me Sanders is an excellent candidate for any usual form of execution. His sentence will be far less “random” than the death penalties he imposed upon his victims. And perhaps because I presided over so many jury trials, I’ve come to trust juries more than I trust judges.


QCOline.com September 9, 2016

Copyright, John Donald O'Shea

Lessons for US in Venezuelan Socialist "Utopia"

In 1999, the Venezuelan people elected socialist/Marxist Hugo Chavez as president. He promised a socialist paradise. Chavez clung to office until his death in 2013.

During his "term," Chavez expropriated property from the rich and redistributed it to the poor, giving them new homes and appliances. Chavez was succeeded by hand-picked Vice President Nicolas Maduro.

Now, three years later, 1.85 million Venezuelans signed petitions to remove Maduro from office. (Nine times the number needed to begin the process!) Maduro's electoral commission refuses to hold the election, claiming fraud! Maduro's approval rating stands at 24.3 percent.

So, what went wrong with the Venezuelan socialist experiment? Its Marxist economy? In short, the money ran out.

The problems did not begin with Maduro. Even in the halcyon Chavez days, when Venezuelan oil sold for $100 a barrel, the nation's debt was rising, and there were food shortages.

Oil accounts for 98 percent of the country's exports; 59 percent of its revenues. When oil dropped to $30 a barrel (it's now about $49), the country's economy tanked.

In 2016, government spending is expected to exceed revenues by 25 percent. The International Monetary Fund projects inflation will reach 4,505 percent by 2021.

The nation's capital, Caracas, has become the world's most violent city. In socialist utopian Venezuela, equality has been achieved; everybody's without hope!

Recently, a plastic bag stuffed with toilet paper rolls sold for 9,000 Bolivars. A bag of fruit and vegetables that could be purchased for 430 Bolivars in April of 2015, now costs 14,000 Bolivars. A Venezuela worker's average monthly salary is 15,000 Bolivars.

To offset the plunge in oil revenues, the government drastically cut imports to 2004 levels.

The result? Across-the-board shortages of milk, razors, cough syrup, toothpaste, toilet paper and baby wipes -- things you now get only on the black market. Hospitals and pharmacies are desperately short of even the most basic medicines, such as amoxycillin. In markets where prices are government controlled, shelves are half-empty.

To make things worse, a prolonged drought has reduced to oversized puddles the Venezuelan lakes which provide water to the country's hydroelectric dams. Less water means less electricity. The government's response? Rolling blackouts, two-day work weeks for public sector workers, and Friday school closings.

Venezuela nationalized profitable private businesses. Managers were replaced to provide jobs for the poor. But because appointees lacked management skills, once-profitable businesses went bankrupt.

-- On Jan. 15, President Maduro declared a 60-day state of economic emergency, allowing the government to seize assets of private companies to obtain essential food and goods.

-- On Feb. 18, Maduro raised the price of gasoline -- frozen for the past 20 years at $0.01 per liter, to $0.60 -- while devaluing the Bolivar and increasing the minimum wage.

-- On April 21, Maduro imposed electricity blackouts to last four hours per day for 40 days in several states.

-- On April 27, Maduro cut the working week for public-sector employees to two days to save electricity.

-- On May 15, the government said their will be no recall vote due to "fraud."

-- On May 18, Venezuelans took to the street, and Maduro responded that he is prepared to escalate the state of emergency.

-- On July 22, President Maduro, issued a presidential decree: "people working in public and private companies can be called upon to join state-sponsored organizations specialized in the production of food. They will be made to work in the new companies temporarily for a minimum of 60 days after which their 'contracts' will be automatically renewed for an extra 60-day period or they will be allowed to go back to their original jobs."
Amnesty International said that "new decree establishing that any employee in Venezuela can be effectively made to work in the country’s fields as a way to fight the current food crisis is unlawful, and effectively amounts to forced labour -- even if paid their old wages."

Forced labor equals slavery.

It has taken Chavez and Maduro 17 years to transition from capitalism to socialism to slavery. President Obama has started a similar process here. Hillary proposes to serve his "third term."


Posted: Wednesday, Sept. 2, 2016 - QCOline.com

Copyright 2016

John Donald O'Shea