Aren't the Rich Already Being Taxed to Help the Poor?

On Jan. 6, The Dispatch-Argus ran an article headlined, "Tax the rich to help the poor." But since the Great Depression, hasn't the federal government been doing just that?

In 2016, IRS published data concerning 2014 federal income tax collections showed 139,562,034 taxpayers filed 2014 individual (as opposed to corporate) federal returns, and paid $1,374,379,000,000 in federal income taxes. They included:

-- 139,562,034 taxpayers, the top 1 percent paid $542,640,000,000 - 39.48 percent;

-- 6,978,102 taxpayers, the top 5 percent paid $824,153,000,000 - 59.98 percent;

-- 13,956,203 taxpayers, the top 10 percent paid $974,124,000,000 - 70.88 percent;

-- 34,890,509 taxpayers, the top 25 percent paid $1,192,679,000,000 - 86.78 percent;

-- 69,781,107 taxpayers, the top 50 percent paid $1,336,637,000,000 - 97.25 percent; and

-- 69,781,017, the bottom 50 percent paid $37,740,000,000 or 2.75 percent of all individual federal income taxes paid.

Imagine the plight of the bottom 50 percent, if the top 50 percent didn't exist, or if the top half paid no taxes. There would have been $1.336 trillion less revenue in individual federal income taxes. That would have increased the 2014 deficit from $483 billion to $1,819 billion.

In 2014, U.S. military spending was $800 billion, pensions, $914 billion; health care, $921 billion; welfare, $370 billion; transportation, $92 billion; interest, $229 billion, etc. The $37.7 billion paid by the bottom 50 percent, would not have covered 50 percent of a single one of those expenses!

Without the top 50 percent, there would have been no money for defense, health care, transportation, interest, and only $37 billion on welfare costs of $370 billion. That $370 billion for welfare is 10 times more than the bottom 50 percent paid in federal income taxes.

In 2014, the Census Bureau reported the numbers of Americans who received welfare, i.e., participated in means tested programs in 2012, included:

-- 82,679,000, Medicaid.

-- 51,471,000, food stamps

-- 22,526,000, Women, Infants and Children programs,

-- 20,355,000, SSI

-- 13,267,000 lived in public housing or received housing subsidies.

-- 5,442,000 Temporary Assistance to Needy Families


-- 4,517,000 others received some other form of federal cash assistance.

And the poor also benefit from roads, bridges, courthouses, and a strong military.

Somebody paid, and it wasn't the 50 percent taxpayers who paid 2.75 percent of all individual federal income taxes.

So, when the top 10 percent of all taxpayers -- incomes over $133,445 -- pay 70.88 percent of all federal income taxes, how much more must they pay to be deemed righteous? Fair? Doesn't a wage-earner with a wife and two children have a right to spend the greatest part of his $150,000 earnings on his own family?

And when 25 percent of all taxpayers -- over $77,714 -- pay 86.78 percent of federal income taxes, how much more must they pay to be deemed fair? Doesn't that wage-earner with a wife and two children have the same right to spend the bulk of his $80,000 earnings on his own family? Or is it just those with incomes over $542,640 paying 39.48 percent of all federal income taxes who aren't being fair?

Do the math. If 100 million Americans are receiving some share of the $37 billion in welfare benefits, is it fair to cry "tax the rich to help the poor?" Aren't the top 50 percent already carrying 97.25 percent of the burden?

If the top 1 percent -- incomes over $542,640 -- had been required to pay at a 50 percent rate, they would have paid $687,189,500,000, rather than the $542,640,000,000 they paid at 39.48 percent in 2014. That would have generated an additional $144.5 billion in revenues, more than enough to relieve the entire bottom 50 percent from paying the $37.5 billion they paid.

Clearly, the poor who are disabled or otherwise in genuine need can't be expected to pay taxes. But they are only a part of the bottom 50 percent.

So, would it be fair for the other part of the bottom 50 percent to claim all the benefits of citizenship while paying no income taxes? To demand his neighbor pay more? Should fairness not require that they at least pay the "widow's mite?" Is that 2.75 percent?

Fairness to some degree is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted: QCOline.com January 25, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Taxing Rich to Help Poor - Some Background

On Jan. 6, The Dispatch-Argus ran a piece, "Tax the rich to help the poor."

Some years ago, Father Bob Lee gave a short sermon. It ran only five minutes. I've listened to thousands of others. But Fr. Lee's is the only one that has stuck with me. The topic of his homily was, "What must we do to be saved." Matthew 25: 31-46.

“When the Son of Man comes ... he will separate the people ... He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“He will say to those on his right, ‘Take your inheritance .... For I was hungry and you gave me to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me to drink ...

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me ... for I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink ... Whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

Christ enjoined these duties on us as individuals. He wasn't speaking to governments. We were individually charged with being charitable to those in need. Christ said he came to save men; not to set up either a capitalist or socialist utopia. Had he wanted to be king, he could have continued multiplying loaves and fishes. The people would have made him king. John 6:25

Did Christ ever tell the Roman government that it had a duty to support the poor through taxes? Nevertheless, based on Christ's teachings, the church's catechism has extrapolated that message. But even so, does one get to heaven by paying his taxes? Would Christ buy the argument, "OK, I was never charitable, but I paid my taxes, and thereby helped the poor. Therefore, I belong in heaven?

In his great social encyclical, "Rerum Novarum" (1891), Pope Leo XIII penned what is generally regarded as the church's foundational document on social justice. Pope Leo, in the main, discussed the co-relative rights/duties of capital and working men, affirmed the right of private property, and condemned Socialism and the excesses of capitalism.

Speaking critically of socialism, Leo wrote:

"The socialists ... are striving to do away with private property, and contend that individual possessions should become the common property of all, to be administered by the State .... The remedy they propose is manifestly against justice. For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own ... [Without private property] no one would have any interest in exerting his talents or his industry... [Socialism would result in] the leveling down of all to a like condition of misery and degradation. The main tenet of socialism, community of goods, must be utterly rejected."

Perhaps because the focus of the encyclical is on the rights/duties of capital/laborer, it speaks only briefly of the duties of the state to the poor, but appears to define the poor.

"The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family ... is a great ... error.

"True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid."

Prior to our Great Depression, aid to the American poor was largely provided by charitable individuals, the churches, some civic organizations, and units of local government. When during the Depression, those sources were overwhelmed, the federal government necessarily became involved and remains involved to this day.

Today it is generally agreed that some part of the nation's resources should be used to help those in genuine permanent, and even temporary, need. But who is in need and how much is debated.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church - dealing with the Seventh Commandment - sets out at considerable length the church's current teachings on social justice, private property, common stewardship, and our duties toward the poor, inter alia. (Word limits preclude further discussion here. Read it!) That article provides guiding principles. It does not, however, set out specific numbers as to what is fair, just, and enough in a particular case.

My next op-ed will marshal some specific numbers to help you start to judge for yourselves: What is fair? Just? How much more, if any, the rich must be taxed to help the poor? The needy?

Posted: QCOline.com January 16, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What if Jurors only Listened to Accusors?

Don Wooten and I don't often agree politically. But for once, we do - at least in part ("Women force out a potent champion," Viewpoints, Dec. 17).

Former state Sen. Wooten wrote in reference to the allegations of sexual misconduct leveled against Sen. Al Franken, "Congressional women [have forced] the resignation of one of their champions. ... What I found unconscionable was the rush to pass judgment before there was evidence to do so. ... No one should be drummed out of office this way, without some kind of objective judgment."

Sen. Wooten deplores the rush to judgment" He states his case in terms of evidence and objective judgment, I agree with him on that, although, I would prefer to make the argument in terms of due process: procedural due process, fundamental fairness.


Due process in America addresses the question, what process is or procedures are, required in a given case, consistent with fundamental fairness.

In our country, due process in a state criminal trial has come to mean essentially the procedures specified in our Bill of Rights. But even within the narrow context of U.S. criminal law, what amounts to due process varies depending on the stage of the proceeding.

For an arrest or search warrant to issue, the state must establish "probable cause." At trial, the state must prove its case "beyond a reasonable doubt." In a probation revocation hearing, the state must prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the defendant violated his probation.

Due process also applies to civil cases. For example, at a hearing to suspend or revoke a liquor license, the moving party must prove the violation by the greater weight of the evidence.

In a state court felony (criminal) prosecution, due process requires that the defendant has the right to hire an attorney; if he can't afford an attorney, he gets a free one. Due process does not require that in most civil cases. If you run somebody over with your car and get sued, you may have the right to hire an attorney, but you generally don't get a free one.

At a minimum, however, procedural due process in America means you get a written specification of the charge against you, and an opportunity to dispute that charge before an impartial tribunal - but not necessarily before a jury.


So when a man is charged with sexual misconduct by a woman in the newspapers, or on radio or TV, what does due process require? The argument has been made that a woman would never lie about being sexually abused. That is as mindless as saying that a man would never lie when he denies engaging in sexual abuse.

Attorney Lisa Bloom has now been accused of offering a woman $750,000 to make allegations of sexual misconduct against President Trump. That woman apparently refused. However, another did "speak out" - after her $30,000 mortgage was paid off, and after she received "fees for licensing photos."

My experience in the affairs of life tells me that some women lie. Others, like my mother and my Aunt Nell wouldn't have lied at gunpoint. Some men lie; others don't.


The point is simply this: When a woman publicly asserts that she has been the victim of sexual misconduct, abuse, or exploitation, she deserves a fair hearing. If the male accused then makes a denial, he deserves a fair hearing.

In politics, most of these charges and denials appear in the papers, and on TV, etc. They never get to court. Nevertheless, as rational voting citizens, we become the jury, and have a duty to use our best judgment to decide the truth or falsity of the charges.

In doing so, we employ the tools that any juror would employ, i.e., is there corroboration? Why has the victim waited 50 years to make her charge? If $55 million is being spent to win a House seat, is part of that money being used to induce victims to come out of the woodwork to accuse one or both candidates of acts of sexual misconduct? Do the accuser and the accused have reputations for always being truthful? For occasionally being truthful, etc.?

I agree with Don Wooten. A has a right to accuse. B has a right to defend. Truth is best served when the voters behave like an impartial jury.


Posted: QCOline.com January 4, 2018
Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

What Next for PBC? A Golf Course?

I was appalled when I read The Dispatch-Argus’ lead editorial on Sunday, “Rock Island Board, say yes to PBC courthouse plan.”

The editors wrote, “Kudos to the Public Building Commission for voting to set a hard and fast deadline for Rock Island County to either demolish or renovate the old courthouse.

“We urge members of the county board ... to endorse the PBC-approved intergovernmental agreement that says if a buyer has not come forward to purchase the courthouse, or if no funds are available to renovate the building by July 18, 2018, board members will hand the deed over to the PBC for demolition.”

Since my editor has asked us to “share our views,” here’s my opinion ...

On Oct. 1, 1981, the PBC was established by the county board and taxpayers were solemnly assured in the resolution creating that commission, that “the sole purpose of such Public Building Commission” was “to provide a good and sufficient jail.”

That “good and sufficient jail” was built and completed 25 years ago. Now, 27 years later, a runaway PBC, an unprincipled county board and an overreaching chief judge want to use that PBC to demolish the antiquated century-old courthouse.

The PBC was created to build a jail. Where was it granted any other power or authority? Where does it get authority to issue ultimatums? To engage in urban renewal? To create landfills, or golf courses? How does any honest public official—judge or county board member—stretch a grant of authority to build “a good and sufficient jail” and claim with a straight face that it authorizes courthouse demolition 26 years later?

This is not a situation where the courthouse had to be demolished so that the land could be used to build the new jail in 1981. The new jail was built on land formerly occupied by the old St. Joseph’s Catholic School, not on the land presently occupied by the courthouse. The old obsolete courthouse remains in use next to the new jail even today.

Make no mistake, I think the old courthouse probably should be taken down for reasons I have expressed in earlier op-eds. But I think the county board should have the guts and integrity to do the job itself.

If a tax has to be levied to pay for the demolition, it is the job of the county board to levy that tax, rather than sloughing off the decision to an un-elected commission.

America fought a revolution over the principle that our taxes were to be levied by our elected representatives—not by a British Parliament—and not by commissioners or dogcatchers.

In 1981, in setting up the PBC, the county board operated under statutory authority granted to the counties by the Illinois Legislature, which gave counties a choice. They were authorized either (a) to set up a commission to be used whenever necessary, or (b) to set up a commission for the “limited purpose” of doing one or a limited number of projects.

The Legislature did not require county boards to hold a referendum before initially setting up the building commissions.

Rock Island County chose Option B. Its commission was set up for a limited, sole purpose, providing “a good and sufficient jail. The Legislature also required a referendum “be submitted to the electors ... and approved,” before that purpose can be expanded.


This is the third effort by the county board and the judges to ignore or stretch the plain language of the statute.

In 2001, three criminal courtrooms, with jury rooms and offices, were built in the Justice Center. Fair and reasonable argument could be made for that use of the commission there.

Criminal courtrooms at least have an arguable connection with a jail. (I retired before those courtrooms were finished, and never used them). Then in 2015, a whole new courthouse was begun.

I have expressed my opinion that the use of the commission without a referendum was illegal. Now, in December of 2017, the commission is about to be—in my opinion—used again in a way no rational citizen would ever have imagined back in 1981 when the taxpayers of the county were assured that the commission was created for the “sole purpose” of building a “good and sufficient” jail.

I don’t believe a good end—getting rid of an obsolete courthouse—justifies using means not authorized by law—without the voters first granting approval by referendum.

In my opinion, this all stinks!

Posted: QCOline.com December 21, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Democrats Seek to Abuse Impeachment Powers

Now that John Conyers (D), Roy Moore (R) and Al Franken (D) have been accused of sexual misconduct, Democrats are salivating to revisit the allegations of sexual misconduct made prior to the election against then-candidate Donald Trump.

Walking talking-points, the likes of Eugene Robinson, bray, "If Congress is going to probe the conduct of Conyers and Franken, it must also investigate the multiple, believable allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump."

But why?


Six Democratic congressmen, including Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, want to impeach President Trump. But are they willing to add to their so-called articles of impeachment charges of sexual misconduct?

If so, are they willing to bring similar charges against Conyers and Franken? Members of the House and Senate are not subject to impeachment. Rather, under Article I, Section 5, "Each house ... with the concurrence of two thirds, can expel a member."

Or is the rule, only Republicans should be impeached.

Indeed if candidate Roy Moore has to go based on 40 year-old allegations, why shouldn't Conyers and Franken be cashiered for their more recent "misdemeanors?"

Are there photos of Moore's alleged misconduct? Of Franken's?

Article II of the U.S. Constitution provides "The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

Article 1 provides that the House has sole power to bring charges of impeachment. If charges brought pursuant to a majority House vote, the Senate must try all impeachments, "and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two- thirds of the members present."

The question really is, "what is a high crime or misdemeanor?" During the attempted impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (one of the court's great justices) U.S. Rep. Gerald Ford gave a very practical definition: "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be."

It was on that basis, that President Bill Clinton (quite wrongfully, in my opinion) was impeached, but not convicted. But Ford's understanding is not what the framers understood or intended.

The framers borrowed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English experience and history. Parliament had impeached for the misuse of public funds, abuse of political (not sexual) power, neglect of duty, corruption, and encroachment upon the prerogatives of the legislature.

For example, English Lord Chancellor Francis Bacon, was impeached for corruption and taking gratuities - "bribes" - from litigants. Charles I was charged with treason for waging war against Parliament, and the people therein represented, and for abuse of power- for encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament, according to "The Enduring Constitution," by Jethro Koller Lieberman.


American President Andrew Johnson (1867), Justices Samuel Chase (1804) and William O. Douglas were charged with acts done while they held office. Richard Nixon also would have been, had he not resigned.

To revisit charges of sexual misconduct against Mr. Trump before the election, or to examine additional charges that could have been leveled at that time, which weren't, would be a gross abuse of the power of impeachment.

In an impeachment, the Senate acts as the jury. But the charges against Mr. Trump - made before the election - have already been passed upon by another jury - the ultimate jury - the people of the United States, voting in the 2016 presidential election.

The voters were fully aware of the allegations. They had been relentlessly broadcast by the press, Democratic politicians, and anti-Trumpists across TV, cable, radio, newspapers and the internet. And the voters elected Mr. Trump.

There is something utterly undemocratic about 67 Senators nullifying a presidential election - the considered will of the American people.

(I am not saying that the Senate could not convict a president of a pre-election "high crime or misdemeanor" that was unknown to the voters on the day of elections that only comes to light later).

Mr. Lieberman writes, "Disapproval of presidential policies was not made a ground for impeachment, and it is generally agreed that the House abused its power in impeaching President Andrew Johnson in 1867 because it disliked his policies."

Posted: QCOline.com December 7, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea


Authors Note: Below is the op ed as originially submitted to my publisher, before their editorial changes.






                     A LITTLE IMPEACHMENT LAW AND OPINION



Now that John Conyers (D), Roy Moore (R) and Al Frankin (D) have been accused of
sexual misconduct, Democrats are salivating to revisit the allegations of sexual
misconduct made prior to the election against then-candidate Donald Trump.


Walking talking-points, the likes of Eugene Robinson, bray "If Congress is going to
probe the conduct of Conyers and Franken, it must also investigate the multiple,
believable allegations of sexual misconduct against Trump." But why?

Six Democratic Congressmen, the likes of Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, want to impeach
President Trump. But are they willing to add to their so-called articles of impeachment
charges of sexual misconduct? If so, are they willing to bring similar charges against
Conyers and Franken in their respective houses? [Members of the House and Senate
are not subject to impeachment. Rather, under Article I, Section 5, "Each house ... with
the concurrence of two thirds, can expel a member."]


Or is the rule, "only Republicans should be impeached. Indeed if candidate Moore "has
to go" based on 40 year-old allegations of sexual misconduct, why shouldn't Conyers
and Franken be cashiered for their more recent "misdemeanors?" Are there photos of
Moore's alleged misconduct? Of Franken's?



Article II, Sec. 4 of the U. S. Constitution provides "The President, Vice President,
and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment
for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."


Art. I, Sec. 2 [5} provides "The House of Representatives shall ...have the sole  power of impeachment." That means the House of Representatives has the sole power
to bring charges (to "impeach"). That charge is brought pursuant to a majority vote.

Art. 1, Sec. 3 [6] provides, "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all
impeachments. ... and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-
thirds of the members present."

So the question really is, "what is a high crime or misdemeanor?" During the attempted
impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (one of the court's
great justices) Congressman Gerald Ford gave a very practical definition: "An
impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers
it to be." It was on that basis, that President Bill Clinton (quite wrongfully, in my opinion)
was impeached, but not convicted. But Ford's understanding is not what the framers
understood or intended. The framers borrowed the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English experience and history. There, the phrase took its meaning from English Parliamentary experience. Parliament had impeached for the misuse of public funds, abuse of political (not sexual) power, neglect of duty, corruption, and encroachment upon the prerogatives of the legislature. For example, the English


The Lord Chancellor, Francis Bacon, was impeached for corruption and taking gratuities -
"bribes" - from litigants. Charles I was charged with treason for waging war against the
Parliament, and the people therein represented, and for abuse of power- for encroaching on the prerogatives of Parliament. "Our Enduring Constitution," Lieberman, (1997) p. 92.


In America, President Andrew Johnson (1867), and Justices Samuel Chase (1804) and
William O.Douglas were charged with acts done while they held office. Richard Nixon
also would have been, had he not resigned.

To re-visit the charges of sexual misconduct leveled against Mr. Trump before the
election, or to examine additional charges that could have been leveled at that
time, which weren't, would be a gross abuse of the power of impeachment. In an
impeachment, the Senate acts as the jury. But the charges against Mr. Trump - made before the election - have already been passed upon by "another jury" - the
ultimate jury - the people of the United States, voting in the 2016 Presidential election.


The voters were fully aware of the allegations. They had been relentlessly broadcast by
the press, Democratic politicians, and anti-Trump-ists across TV, cable, radio, newspapers and the internet. And the voters discounted the allegations and elected Mr. Trump President. 

There is something utterly undemocratic about 67 Senators nullifying a Presidential election - the considered will of the American people. (I am not saying that the Senate could not convict a President of a pre-election "high crime or misdemeanor" that was unknown to the voters on the day of elections that only comes to light later).


Finally, Mr. Lieberman writes, "Disapproval of presidential policies was not made
a ground for impeachment, and it is generally agreed that the House abused its power in impeaching President Andrew Johnson in 1867 because it disliked his
policies."

A modern-day Christmas Carol

Do you make charitable donations? Christmas donations? If so, how do you decide to whom you will give? Do you ever wonder whether the money that you give really goes for your intended purpose?

As I have grown older, I have come to believe that my donations should go to those who have the greatest need - those incapable of caring for themselves. I also have come to believe my donations should be local. As an old curmudgeon, I want to be in position to see that the organization that solicits my donation is faithfully using the money efficiently and consistently for their stated charitable purpose.

There is an organization in the Quad-Cities simply known as "The Arc." Its main office is on 9th Street in Rock Island. The Arc was founded in 1952 by parents of children with either physical or mental disabilities.


I write to ask you to consider helping The Arc this Christmas and beyond.

I write to say a personal thank you to The Arc. On June 1, 1973, my wife was pregnant. A few days later, our son was born. Hours after his birth, we were told by my friend and pediatrician, Dr. Martin Greenberg, that Tom was seizuring, and that his EEG showed chaotic electrical patterns in all regions of his brain.

Like most parents, we ran from Chicago's Children's Memorial, to Iowa City, to Mayo, in hopes something could be done to change Tom's future. Nothing could. His mom and I raised him into his 20s. He spent time at The ARC's (it was then known as the "ARC" it is now called "The Arc") Opportunity Center in Moline, and then at Blackhawk Special Education.

And then something happened. His mom, who had been on the old ARC Board, learned there was a vacancy at an ARC group home in Moline. She felt this eight-person facility was the best of all the ARC facilities. She felt that the time had come to place Tom.

At first, I balked, but her arguments were persuasive.

We were getting older? A time would come when we'd be incapable of caring for Tom. He'd be well cared for and with peers. He'd have his own home. She convinced me, and we placed Tom (and his Rockola Jukebox).


It was probably the best decision we could ever have made for him. It takes caring people to provide 24-hour care for eight physically and/or mentally disabled adults.

Today, Tom is healthy, and happy. He views the group home as his "home." He enjoys visiting with us every week, but he is always ready to go back to "his house." He has friends, Marla and Joe, there.

Today The Arc runs 14 small six-to-eight-person group homes. In addition, it provides Arc Industries. There, its clients, among other things, make cardboard boxes of every size and shape. (If you need boxes - one or a thousand - call and give them your business).


Other Arc clients clean the Butterworth Center and the Lodge at Blackhawk State Park. The Arc is a 5-1(c)(3) not-for-profit organization. Today, it employs a staff of 219 persons; 171 of those are directly involved with care of the disabled clients; 142 provide direct support (primary care), and 29 are either on-site group home supervisors, or case workers. The remaining 48 provide staff support - including the executive director, and the director of development, etc.

Nearly 80 percent of The Arc budget goes to staffing, 4.5 percent to supplies,. 4.7 percent to maintenance. 1.6 percent for transportation (the 18 vans used to transport clients and staff), 3.62 percent covers miscellaneous expenses. and 8.7 percent goes for interest expense.

In 1891, Pope Leo XIII wrote of the duty of the state to provide for those "in exceeding distress ... without any prospect of extricating themselves from their extreme necessity."

When children of God are disabled, unable to care for themselves, and living in our community, should anyone - other than perhaps family - occupy a higher place in our plans for charitable and Christmas-giving?

Do we wait for the state to provide them welfare, or should we, at Christmastime, include these - as well as your favorite needy - in our charity?

Posted: QCOline.com December 5, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea

Thanksgiving Day through the Centuries

     A Day to be Thankful for the Sacrifices of all our Ancestors

Thanksgiving day is this Thursday. When you wake up, you'll roll out of bed, into a room heated by your gas furnace. There will be a solid roof over your head.

You'll turn on the electric lights and television. You'll turn on the water to brush your teeth and take a warm shower. You'll go to your refrigerator and get milk, bacon and eggs.

You'll check to see if the turkey you purchased is thawed for cooking in your electric or gas oven. For last minute items, stores will be open. As the day progresses, your odds of being attacked by natives are infinitesimally small.


Life in colonial America wasn't this safe and convenient. The early European colonists came to America for a myriad of reasons.

Jacques Cartier first sailed to America in 1534, on behalf of the French King, in search of gold, spices and a northern passage to the Orient.

A year later, Cartier returned in three small ships. This time, he establish a base or settlement at what is now Quebec, explored the St. Lawrence, as far as what is now Montreal.

On Oct. 11, he returned to winter at Quebec. It was too late in the year to recross the Atlantic to France. Scurvy set in. Nearly every Frenchman was stricken. In his journal, Cartier wrote, "out of 110 that we were, not ten were well enough to help the others; a pitiful thing to see."

There were no supermarkets where they could buy food, and fruits with Vitamin C. They were saved only when Domagaya, an Indian, told them of a concoction, apparently made from arbor vitae bark, which cured the scurvy, but not before 25 Frenchmen succumbed.

From mid-November 1535 until mid-April 1536, the small French fleet sat frozen in the ice, and fishing was impossible. They survived on salted game and fish, prepared before winter came.


Jamestown was an investment of the Virginia Company of London. Like the French in Canada, the English investors wanted a route to the orient, gold and gems. In December of 1606, 143 colonists sailed from England to Chesapeake Bay. On May 14, 1607 they selected a location on the James River to build their settlement, Jamestown.

The location, chosen for reasons of defense, with the coming of summer proved to be a malarial swamp. Worse, they arrived too late to plant crops. As each wild turkey was taken, their food supply moved further from the safety of the settlement.

By spring, before expected supply ships could arrive, more than 100 colonists had died of illness, starvation or small-scale Indian attacks.

Beginning in the spring of 1608, more settlers arrived. But then came the winter of 1609, the "starving time." When spring 1610 came, only 60 of 400 were still alive.


On Dec. 21, 1620, the Pilgrims - 102 of them - sent their first landing party ashore at what has come to be known as the Plymouth settlement. They were fleeing religious persecution, and immigrated to practice their faith as they saw fit.

During that first winter scurvy set in. Many of the men became too sick to work. Gov. William Bradford wrote, "of these one hundred persons who came over in this first ship together, the greatest half died in the general mortality, and most of them in two or three months' time."

Eighteen women had made the voyage: 13 died that winter; one more in May. Only four of the 18 lived to see the 1621 "autumn harvest celebration."

So, as Thanksgiving dawns this year, consider what you have and compare it to what the early colonists had.

They chose to come, anticipating the hardships of making their lives in the wilderness. In America of 1534-1620, their were no stores, or supermarkets. No houses, heat, air-conditioning, electricity, running water, sanitation systems or police to protect them. They brought with them no skilled doctors; no antibiotics.

They and their descendants began America so we would be free of the demands of kings and over-zealous churchmen, and free to earn our livings as we saw fit. So turn off FOX and CNN for one day, and be thankful for all we have in America.

Posted: QCOline.com Nov. 21, 2017
Copyright 2017, John Donald O'Shea