Can a Christian Kill the Innocent? Bishop says, "No!"

Recently, two pro-abortion bills were passed by the Illinois Legislature. House Bill 40 became law in 2017. Now, Senate Bill 25, the Illinois Reproductive Health Act has been signed by Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

In response, Bishop Thomas Paprocki of the Diocese of Springfield issued a decree:

           "in accord with ... Canon Law that Illinois Senate President John Cullerton and 

           Speaker of the House Michael J. Madigan, who facilitated the passage of (the acts]

           are not to be admitted to Holy Communion in the Diocese of Springfield, because 

           they have obstinately persisted in promoting the abominable crime and very grave 

           sin of abortion as evidenced by the influence they exerted in their leadership roles 

           and their repeated votes and obdurate public support for abortion rights over an 

           extended period of time.


          "Moreover, I declare that Catholic legislators of the Illinois General Assembly 

          who have cooperated in evil and committed grave sin by voting for any legislation                                                                                                                                                         

          that promotes abortion are not to present themselves to receive Holy Communion 

          without first being reconciled to Christ and the Church in accord with canon 916 

          of the Code of Canon Law."

In support of his June 2 decree, Paprocki writes, "The church since the first century has affirmed the moral evil of abortion, which teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable, declaring, 'You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish' (Didache, 2:2).

"The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops in 2004 said, 'Failing to protect the lives of innocent and defenseless members of the human race is to sin.' ... Those who formulate law therefore have an obligation in conscience to work toward correcting morally defective laws, lest they be guilty of cooperating in evil and in sinning against the common good."


So is Paprocki right or wrong? Are bishops to remain silent and not confront "abominable crime and very grave sin?" What good is a church that will not forcefully speak out to protect the lives of the helpless and the innocent? What about a church that stays silent in the face of mass killing? Thou shall not kill has been the law since Moses. Is abortion not killing?

Christ instructed his disciples, "This is my commandment: love one another as I love you." When Christ was asked, "What is the greatest commandment?" he replied, "Love the Lord your God. ... The second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself." How does a person love a child while intentionally killing it?

Abortion advocates argue that women who have an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy can be depressed or anxious, and after abortion many feel relieved. Respect for the life of the unborn is very important, but must be balanced by respect for the health and life of the mother and the impact on family and community. Madigan justified his actions stating, “I believe it is more important to protect a woman’s right to make her own health care decisions."

But Alan Guttmacher of Planned Parenthood in 2001 conceded only 3% of abortions were related to women's health problems; 1% to rape or incest.

Paprocki bears witness that children are human persons before birth, and certainly after birth. The bishop's actions come at a time when vote-hunting politicians are justifying killing children even after the birth of the child.

Recently, Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor of Virginia, was asked what would happen if a child were born after a failed abortion. He responded, “the infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”

Paprocki is teaching that killing a baby because pregnancy was unplanned, or because the baby is unwanted, or because the killing would relieve the mother's depression/stress, is grave sin with all that entails. He is teaching that one can't kill the innocent and hold himself out as a Christian. The bishop's historic office is to "teach."

In recent years, the Catholic Church has been properly excoriated for doing little or nothing to protect innocent children from sexual abuse by some clergy. Pius XII has been denounced for not denouncing the Nazi extermination of innocent Jews.

Nobody will be able to say Bishop Paprocki didn't speak out as mothers and their doctors are killing innocent children. And nobody will be able to say he didn't do what he could to confront the Bidens and Madigans complicit in the killings.

My mother always taught me, "Do unto others as you would have them do to you."

Paprocki is teaching that "a Christian can't kill the innocent!"

Posted: QCOline.com   June 20, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Is Impeachment a Criminal or Political Judgment?

What conduct will render a U.S. president liable to impeachment? Article II of the Constitution answers that question. "The president ... shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."

So, what constitutes a high crime? A misdemeanor? The phrase has its origins in medieval English impeachment law. (England last used impeachment in 1808. It is now deemed obsolete.)

But in 1970, Republican Rep. Gerald Ford defined an impeachable offense as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives” would vote for. If impeachment is strictly a political question, Ford was absolutely correct.

But if that is what the Constitution means, why didn't the men who wrote it simply write, "a president serves at the pleasure of the House and Senate?"

Impeachment was taken up on three different occasions during the 1787 Constitutional Convention. On June 2, Roger Sherman said "the National Legislature should have power to remove the Executive at pleasure."

George Mason agreed that Congress should have power to impeach, but opposed "removal at pleasure," as "making the executive the mere creature of the Legislature."

On July 20, they focused on whether the executive should or should not be "impeachable while in office." Gouverneur Morris argued, no, it was enough that his accomplices might be punished. George Mason disagreed: "Shall any man be above justice?"

James Madison argued impeachment was indispensable to "defend the community against incapacity, negligence, perfidy or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers." Charles Pinkney did not see "the necessity of impeachments." Pinkney feared the legislature would hold it "as a rod over the executive and ... destroy his independence."

Rufus King thought impeachment of the executive unnecessary, as the electors could remove him at the next election. Morris switched sides. He now argued the executive should also be impeachable for bribery, "treachery; corrupting his electors, and incapacity," as well as abuse of office

On Sept 8, Mason argued that impeachment for treason and bribery alone was inadequate to reach many other "great and dangerous offenses." He suggested adding :"maladministration." Madison objected that the term was so vague as to be equivalent to "at the pleasure of the Senate." Mason then substituted the words "high crimes and misdemeanors."

This substitution was clearly to make impeachment more criminal than political. Yet everybody understood that impeachment could easily become entirely political.

In Federalist Paper 65, Alexander Hamilton set forth his understanding of what constituted an impeachable offense: "those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men ... from the abuse or violation of some public trust." Hamilton, however, clearly understood that impeachment could devolve into a political question of partisan politics.

Impeachments, Hamilton wrote, "are of a nature ... POLITICAL ... The prosecution of them ... will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases, it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other ... there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

A related question: Can a president can be impeached for things done only while in office? Can he also be impeached for things he did before he was elected?

Only Mason discussed that question: "Shall the man who has practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment ... be suffered to escape punishment?" Nobody suggested that a president might be impeached for pre-election adultery, or groping a woman at a teenage beer party.


A second related question: Can a president be impeached for things that he did prior to his election that were essentially known to the voters before they elected him, e.g., if he refused to disclose his tax returns and the voters elect him anyway?

In America, since all men are presumed innocent, and since refusing to publicize one's tax returns is not a criminal offense, the answer should be, no. Senators should say. We cannot find a high crime or misdemeanor has been committed." But politically, if Democrats find 67 votes in the Senate, the answer is, yes.

 In a Senate trial for impeachment, the Senate is the judge of the law and the facts.
The sole safeguards against political abuse are the requirement of 67 votes, and the president's popularity with the American people.


Posted: QCOline.com   June 13, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Social Security, Medicare are fast becoming insolvent, but nobody cares

You're cooking donuts in grease on your stove. The grease catches fire. What do you do first? Extinguish the fire? Mow the lawn?

Every day another Democrat announces he's running for president and, in the same breath, promises a new entitlement program.

Why don’t they first promise to fix Social Security and Medicare? On April 22, the Social Security Board of Trustees released its annual report on the long-term financial status of the two Social Security Trust Funds.


The combined asset reserves of the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) Trust Funds are projected to become depleted in 2035.

the fact the reserves of both funds will be depleted, does not mean that all Social Security payments will cease. Rather, it means that they will come only from current revenues. Those revenues, however, will be sufficient to pay only about 80 percent of scheduled benefits. As such, a person slated to receive an OASI benefit of $1,800 per month will find his benefit reduced to $1,440 -- unless Congress provides the funds additional money.

In 2018, Social Security paid benefits of nearly $989 billion to about 63 million beneficiaries. An estimated 176 million people had earnings covered by Social Security and paid payroll taxes. The deficit over the next 75 years is projected to be 2.78% per year.


On April 22, 2019 the Medicare Board of Trustees released its combined annual report on the long-term financial status of Medicare. Medicare is the second-largest social insurance program in the U.S., with 59.9 million beneficiaries and total expenditures of $741 billion in 2018.

Since in 2002, there has been one combined report discussing both the Hospital Insurance Program (Medicare Part A) and the Supplementary Medical Insurance Program (Medicare Part B and Prescription Drug Coverage).

The hospital insurance (HI) trust fund, which provides the funding for Medicare Part A hospital and inpatient benefits, is expected to be depleted in 2026. At that time, all benefits will have to be paid from the funds current revenues. Current income will only cover 89% of fund costs, unless Congress provides additional money. Without additional funding, by 2034 current annual income will only cover 77% of current annual costs.

Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI) Trust Fund, which covers Parts B & D, will remain adequately financed into the indefinite future because current law provides financing from beneficiary premiums plus general treasury revenues each year to meet the next year’s expected costs.However, the aging population and rising health care costs cause SMI projected costs to grow steadily from 2.1 percent of GDP in 2018 to 3.7 percent of GDP in 2038. The bottom line is this: The trustees project that total Medicare costs (including both HI and SMI expenditures) will grow from approximately 3.7 percent of GDP in 2018 to 5.9 percent of GDP by 2038.


So is there a problem? Social Security and Medicare trustees all agree that there is:


"Lawmakers have many policy options that would reduce or eliminate the long-term financing shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare. Lawmakers should address these financial challenges as soon as possible. Taking action sooner rather than later will permit consideration of a broader range of solutions and provide more time to phase in changes so that the public has adequate time to prepare."


So what are congressional Republicans doing to fix Social Security and Medicare? Nothing! Every time they try, they hand Democrats a cudgel.

When President George W. Bush broached the subject, the bashing began: "Republicans want to privatize Social Security; undermine Medicare!” Bush's plan was more "roulette than reform!" quoth Sen. Harry Reid.

So, what are the congressional Democrats doing to fix Social Security and Medicare?

During the eight years of the Obama administration, Democrats did absolutely nothing. Now, instead of setting out a fix, they’re trotting out a blizzard of new free entitlement programs:

Tuition for All, $70 billion a year; Employment for All, $400 billion a year; Green New Deal, $600 billion a year; Medicare for All, $3.2 trillion a year; reparations to descendants of deceased slaves, Interned Japanese-Americans, and descendants of Native Americans; and forgiveness of student debt, $640 billion.


Rather than shoring up the two great programs we already have that need it, 20-plus Democrats are bounding about the county as if running to be the next Santa Claus. So, what happens if you ignore a grease fire in your kitchen?

Posted: QCOline.com   June 6, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Ocasio-Cortez's "Modern Monetary Theory" is a Fool’s Gamble

The U.S. government predicts that in 2020 it will have a deficit of $1.1 trillion: Revenues of $3.6 trillion and expenses of $4.7 trillion.

Now Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, the new blithe spirit of the Democratic Party, wants to spend an additional $4.3 trillion on:

-- Free College Tuition for All: $70 billion a year.

-- Guaranteed Employment for All: $400 billion a year.

-- Green New Deal: $600 billion a year.

-- Medicare for All: $3.2 trillion a year.

And the best part of her plan is that nobody will have to pay for it! Instead of a $1.1 trillion deficit, the congresswoman would give us a $5.4 trillion deficit.

So exactly how would Ocasio-Cortez pay for her additional $4.3 trillion of goodies?

In the days of the kings, when a government wanted to spend money it didn't have, it would debase its coinage by substituting a bit of lead in its gold coins. In the 20th century, governments found if they needed more money, they could just run the printing presses! Then, when the "great recession" hit in the early years of the 21st century, U.S. Federal Reserve expanded the money supply by something called "quantitative easing."

In an effort to stimulate the economy, our Fed began purchasing assets from commercial banks and other private financial institutions: Treasury bills and notes, bonds and mortgage-backed security paper.

When the government issues a treasury bill, it promises to pay principle and interest to the bank that buys the bill. If the bank buys a bond, the issuer of the bond promises to pay back the purchase price of the bond plus interest to the bank.

Quantitative easing (QE) has been described as an "unconventional monetary policy used by central banks to stimulate the national economy when Conventional Monetary Policy (CMP) has become ineffective.

QE differs from CMP. When the Fed utilizes CMP, it does two things: It lowers interest rates, and it increases the money supply. QE became necessary because the Fed had already lowered interest rates to 0% and couldn't lower them further. QE, therefore, relied on the Fed's only remaining tool: increasing the amount or quantity of money in the system to stimulate the economy. The "quantitative" in QE refers to the "quantity" of money made available.

That's how Ocasio-Cortez plans to give free everything to everybody. She subscribes to something called Modern Monetary Theory.


Professor Stephanie Kelton, a former economic adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders, has said that in accordance with that theory, “the government can afford to pay for any program it wants. It doesn’t have to raise taxes."

But if we can implement the Ocasio-Cortez $3.2 trillion Medicare-for-All plan without raising taxes, why did Sanders recently tell Martha MacCallum (Fox News) the following?

Sanders: "you're not going to pay any health insurance premiums."

MacCallum: "You're going to pay one way or another. Whether it's in your income tax, or your payroll tax, you're going to pay."

Sanders: "Health care is not free."

MacCallum: "You just said it was going to be free for everyone."

Sanders: "It's going to be free at the point at which you use it."

In comparing Kelton's remarks with those of Sanders, it seems rather clear that the professor and the senator are on very different Modern Monetary Theory pages.

So, is there a real difference between the government running printing presses 24/7, and the Fed creating trillions of dollars by clicking the computer?

If our government has revenue in the neighborhood of $4 trillion, can we have deficits of $5 trillion, $10 trillion, or $50 trillion? Or at some point does inflation set in and utterly destroy the earnings, savings and purchasing power of rich and poor alike?

What happened in the years following 1716 when France subscribed to John Law's paper-money policies? The Weimar Republic? The Soviet Union? Twenty-first century Venezuela?

In each case, the bubble burst. Modern Monetary Theory is a fool's gamble.

Posted: QCOline.com   May 23, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Gov. Newsom: Save the Murderers; Execute Innocent Fetuses!

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has issued an "executive moratorium ... in the form of a reprieve for all people sentenced to death in California."

Does it really apply to "all people?" Or does it apply only to convicted murderers? Or just murderers who have intentionally killed one or more of their fellow human beings and whose convictions have been affirmed on appeal?

Are fetuses "people?" Are full-term babies minutes away from a normal delivery people? Are newborn babies who have survived botched abortions people?

When a California mother directs the abortion of such babies, and when her doctor acts as executioner, are these babies not "people" sentenced to death?


In Newsom's California, it appears you have a choice: You can be logically and morally consistent, or you can be a progressive Democrat. You can't be both.

Let's examine Newsom's justifications for reprieving convicted murderers.


1. Newsom: "I just can't kill on behalf of the state. I have four young kids, and my daughter says to me, 'You teach us not to kill.' Yet here I am in a premeditated way killing other people."

Query: If allowing a convicted murderer to be executed according to law makes the governor guilty of killing on behalf of the state, why doesn't allowing a child to be executed according to California's abortion law make the governor guilty of killing on behalf of the state?

Query: Why is aborting a fetus any less "premeditated" than executing a murder?

2. Newsom: “If someone kills, we do not kill. We’re better than that.”

Query: The child in the womb or who has just been born has killed no one. Why should the governor not also logically say, “If someone has not killed (is innocent), we do not kill them. We’re better than that.”

3. Newsom: "California's death penalty system is unfair, unjust, wasteful and protracted, and does not make our system safer."

Query: Before anybody in California can be executed for murder does he not first have to be tried and convicted? Does he not get seemingly endless state and federal appeals? Can he be executed unless his conviction has been affirmed after that entire appeal process?

Query: Does a fetus or a baby born after a botched abortion have any comparable rights? Or is the baby condemned to die at the whim of its mother, without any semblance of due process? Does the fetus get an attorney? A trial? Any appeal?

If executing convicted murderers after they have been accorded all their constitutional rights is unjust, why isn't killing innocent fetus who have been accorded no constitutional rights outrageously unjust? If killing murderers is wasteful and does not make our system safer, why isn't abortion wasteful? How does abortion make California safer?

4. "The state's bedrock responsibility to ensure equal justice under the law applies to all people no matter their race, mental ability or where they live, or how much money they have."

If the bedrock responsibility is to ensure equal justice to all no matter where they live or how much money they have, what is the state's bedrock responsibility to a person living in its mother's womb, and who has no money? 

5. "Death sentences are unevenly and unfairly applied to people of color, people with mental disabilities and people who cannot afford costly legal representation."

Is not the act of aborting a death sentence? Are not abortions "unevenly and unfairly applied to people of color, people with mental disabilities and people who cannot afford costly legal representation"?

6. "The National Academy of Science estimates that as many as one in 25 people sentenced to death in the United States is likely innocent."

Are not 100 percent of children sentenced to death by their mothers and executed by attending doctors entirely innocent?

7. "I will not oversee the execution of any person while I am governor." 

Is not an abortion an execution? Is he going to resign his governorship?

Is not a fetus in the womb a person? Is not a full-term child minutes away from birth a person? Is not a child born after a botched abortion a person?

Scientists say that of the 3 billion letters (base pairs) that make up the human genome, some 15 million of those (1%) are what distinguish man from our nearest relative, the chimp. If the fetus shares those 15 million DNA letters, is it not as fully a human person as you? As Newsom's murderers?

Or are you a science denier?

4. Newsom: "The state's bedrock responsibility to ensure equal justice under the law applies to all people no matter their race, mental ability or where they live, or how much money they have."

Query: If the bedrock responsibility is to ensure equal justice to all no matter where they live or how much money they have, what is the state's bedrock responsibility to a person living in its mother's womb, and who has no money? 

5. Newsom: "Death sentences are unevenly and unfairly applied to people of color, people with mental disabilities and people who cannot afford costly legal representation."

Query: Is not the act of aborting a death sentence? 

Query: Are not abortions "unevenly and unfairly applied to people of color, people with mental disabilities and people who cannot afford costly legal representation"?

6.Newsom: "The National Academy of Science estimates that as many as one in 25 people sentenced to death in the United States is likely innocent."

Query: Are not 100 percent of children sentenced to death by their mothers and executed by attending doctors entirely innocent?

7. Newsom: "I will not oversee the execution of any person while I am governor."

Query: Is not an abortion an execution? Is he going to resign his governorship?

Query: Is not a fetus in the womb a person? Is not a full-term child minutes away from birth a person? Is not a child born after a botched abortion a person?

Scientists say that of the 3 billion letters (base pairs) that make up the human genome, some 15 million of those (1%) are what distinguish man from our nearest relative, the chimp. If the fetus shares those 15 million DNA letters, is it not as fully a human person as you? As Newsom's murderers?


Or are you a science denier?


Posted: QCOline.com   May 9, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Taxpayers Will Pay for 'Free" Health-care for All

Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, claiming that "health care is a right," wants the U.S. government to take over the entire U.S. health-care industry.

Sanders promises "Medicare-for-all," a national, single-payer Medicare system with "vastly expanded benefits." The senator admits his plan would exterminate all private insurance companies, so as to eliminate competition with his expanded Medicare program.

Deductibles and co-pays would be eliminated. The Sanders plan also calls for universal long-term care in home and community settings. Medicaid would continue to cover institutional care, and states would determine the standard of eligibility.

The conservative Mercatus Group estimates that the Sanders' plan would cost Americans $33 trillion over the next decade -- $3.3 trillion per year.

Health insurance is traditionally paid for by paying "premiums." But to pay for his Medicare-for-all insurance, Sander instead proposes tax increases.

Sanders states that to pay for Medicare-for-all, new taxes would be imposed on both employers and employees. Employers would pay a new 7.5% payroll tax (with the first $2 million in payroll exempted "to protect small businesses"). Employees would pay an additional 4% tax (but the first $29,000 of income would be exempted for a family of four).

Because these taxes will not be enough, Sanders also proposes raising a marginal tax rate of up to 70% on those making above $10 million, taxing earned and unearned income at the same rates, limiting tax deductions for filers in the top tax bracket, and establishing a tax on extreme wealth and making the estate tax more progressive, including a 77% top rate on an inheritance above $1 billion.

At present, workers in America pay a Social Security/Medicare tax at the rate of 15.3%. Our government tells us that 7.65% of that tax is paid by the employer, and 7.65% is paid by the employee. That is a fiction. The entire 15.3% is really paid by the employee.

It's a tax-accounting gimmick designed to convince the gullible that the employer is paying 7.65% in addition to the worker salary, when in reality the entire 15.3% is taken from the worker's salary with half labeled as a tax on the employer, and the other half as a tax on the employee.

Sanders is engaging in exactly the same legerdemain. He disingenuously claims the employer will be taxed an additional 7.5% and the employee only an additional 4%. In reality, the new 11.5% will be deducted from the employee's pay so that instead of paying 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare, the employee will have the high honor of paying 26.8%.

And, of course, the employee will also have the high honor of paying his federal income taxes with no deduction for what he pays for his new Medicare-for-all.

If the 2018 federal income tax rates remain the same, and if the Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan becomes law, a single man with a taxable income of $50,000 will pay federal income tax of $6,834 plus a real Social Security/Medicare-for-all tax of $13,400 -- 40.5% of his taxable income.


Rock Island County runs Hope Creek Care Center. County Administrator Jim Snider states that running a nursing home is "a tough business." Hope Creek, in three months, has increased its short-term debt from $4.6 million to $5.3 million. Net operating costs are running a loss of about $460,000 per month. The county, which can't print money, has to make up the shortfall.


And how is Medicare presently doing? In 2018, Medicare trustees, reported that the fund would become insolvent in 2026. (In 2017, they estimated insolvency would occur in 2029).


Rock Island County can't run a small nursing home. The present government-run Medicare system is seven years from insolvency. Congress can't get anything done. So why would any rational person risk putting nearly 20% of the U.S. economy in the hands of government bureaucrats who screw up everything they touch?


We have the lesson of U.S.S.R socialism: bankruptcy. We have the lesson of Venezuelan socialism: bankruptcy. We have the lesson of Cuba: a 1950s economy. Sanders goes blithely on, intentionally closing his eyes to the historical realities of Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.


It is argued that our present insurance system is expensive. But you get what you pay for. Before you believe people who claim "our system is the worst among developed countries," check the details, e.g., what is counted as a "live birth" in America? In France? How you count makes a big difference. If you count a child delivered before 22 weeks which quickly dies as a live birth, and France doesn't, we look worse.

Posted: QCOline.com   May 2, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Pause

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time0:00

Stream TypeLIVE

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Fullscreen

00:00

Mute

Sanders is engaging in exactly the same legerdemain. He disingenuously claims the employer will be taxed an additional 7.5% and the employee only an additional 4%. In reality, the new 11.5% will be deducted from the employee's pay so that instead of paying 15.3% for Social Security and Medicare, the employee will have the high honor of paying 26.8%.

And, of course, the employee will also have the high honor of paying his federal income taxes with no deduction for what he pays for his new Medicare-for-all.

If the 2018 federal income tax rates remain the same, and if the Sanders' Medicare-for-all plan becomes law, a single man with a taxable income of $50,000 will pay federal income tax of $6,834 plus a real Social Security/Medicare-for-all tax of $13,400 -- 40.5% of his taxable income.

Rock Island County runs Hope Creek Care Center. County Administrator Jim Snider states that running a nursing home is "a tough business." Hope Creek, in three months, has increased its short-term debt from $4.6 million to $5.3 million. Net operating costs are running a loss of about $460,000 per month. The county, which can't print money, has to make up the shortfall.

And how is Medicare presently doing? In 2018, Medicare trustees, reported that the fund would become insolvent in 2026. (In 2017, they estimated insolvency would occur in 2029).

Rock Island County can't run a small nursing home. The present government-run Medicare system is seven years from insolvency. Congress can't get anything done. So why would any rational person risk putting nearly 20% of the U.S. economy in the hands of government bureaucrats who screw up everything they touch?

We have the lesson of U.S.S.R socialism: bankruptcy. We have the lesson of Venezuelan socialism: bankruptcy. We have the lesson of Cuba: a 1950s economy. Sanders goes blithely on, intentionally closing his eyes to the historical realities of Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.

It is argued that our present insurance system is expensive. But you get what you pay for. Before you believe people who claim "our system is the worst among developed countries," check the details, e.g., what is counted as a "live birth" in America? In France? How you count makes a big difference. If you count a child delivered before 22 weeks which quickly dies as a live birth, and France doesn't, we look worse.

When Can President Declare a "National Emergency?"

The U.S. president takes an oath to "faithfully execute" his office, and "to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."


President Donald Trump has declared a national emergency to prevent an invasion of one million immigrants expected to illegally cross our border with Mexico this year. He also plans to utilize roughly $6 billion from the Defense Department budget, as well as, lesser amounts from other sources to "build the wall."


Opponents of his emergency declaration insist the president has no constitutional power to appropriate moneys from the U.S. Treasury or to use moneys appropriated by Congress for one purpose for another purpose that the president likes better.


If the president is doing either of those things, his critics are correct. Attorney General William Barr disagrees and says that the president's order is “clearly authorized under the law and consistent with past precedent.”


Barr states that the situation at the border “is exactly the type of situation the president is allowed to address” under the National Emergencies Act of 1976, which sets out a president’s emergency powers.


In this regard, a brief examination of the powers expressly given to the president by the Constitution is helpful to understand the contrary positions.


The Constitution gives the president power to:


-- Approve or veto laws passed by Congress;


-- Be commander-in-chief of the Army, Navy and state militias when in federal service;


-- Require written opinions from principal officers of the executive department;


-- Grant pardons and reprieves, except in case of impeachment;


-- Make treaties, with the consent of two-thirds of the Senate;


-- Nominate ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, etc.;


-- Give Congress information, re: the State of the Union.


-- Recommend measures he deems necessary to Congress and limited powers to convene and adjourn Congress;

-- Receive ambassadors;


-- Commission officers of the United States;


-- Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.


Opponents of the president's declaration argue that if Congress appropriates money for one purpose, none of the previously listed powers would authorize the president to take that money and use it for a different purpose.


That argument, as far as it goes, is correct. When you deposit money in your savings account at the bank, you do not authorize the teller to use your money to take a personal vacation to Hawaii. That would be embezzlement, and the president using funds appropriated for one specific purpose for another would be roughly akin to embezzlement.


But what if Congress appropriates funds for the president to use according to his discretion to meet national emergencies? Barr is saying the president is not using moneys appropriated by Congress solely for purpose A, for purpose B. He is saying three other things:


1. Congress gave the president express power to declare national emergencies.


2. This president's national emergency declaration is an exercise of presidential discretion entirely consistent with past precedents.


3. Congress has specifically appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet national emergencies.


When Congress gives a president express power to exercise his discretion to declare a National Emergency, and when the president declares an emergency, the president is not operating under a vague claim of "inherent" or "implied" presidential powers. He is acting under a specific delegation of power granted by Congress.


One thing is absolutely clear in this political battle: Congress has given presidents broad discretion to say what amounts to a national emergency. The 1976 National Emergencies Act vested that discretion in the president, and not in any federal judge or anyone else.


And there is no claim that the act anywhere states that the president cannot exercise his discretion if he adjudges that one million people entering this country illegally is a national emergency.


The real question, therefore, that will come before the courts is: Did Congress appropriate funds, or authorize the president to re-allocate appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet a national emergency?


If it did, the president wins. If not, he loses. When Congress specifically directs the president to exercise his discretion when he finds that a national emergency exists, when he does so, he operates under his express Constitutional power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”


Similarly, if he is given discretion to use funds appropriated for defense as he deems best, and he does so, he is also operating under his express Constitutional power as commander-in-chief.

Posted: QCOline.com   April 18, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea

Pause

Current Time0:00

/

Duration Time0:00

Stream TypeLIVE

Loaded: 0%

Progress: 0%

0:00

Fullscreen

00:00

Mute

-- Receive ambassadors;

-- Commission officers of the United States;

-- Take care that the laws be faithfully executed.

Opponents of the president's declaration argue that if Congress appropriates money for one purpose, none of the previously listed powers would authorize the president to take that money and use it for a different purpose.

That argument, as far as it goes, is correct. When you deposit money in your savings account at the bank, you do not authorize the teller to use your money to take a personal vacation to Hawaii. That would be embezzlement, and the president using funds appropriated for one specific purpose for another would be roughly akin to embezzlement.

But what if Congress appropriates funds for the president to use according to his discretion to meet national emergencies? Barr is saying the president is not using moneys appropriated by Congress solely for purpose A, for purpose B. He is saying three other things:

1. Congress gave the president express power to declare national emergencies.

2. This president's national emergency declaration is an exercise of presidential discretion entirely consistent with past precedents.

3. Congress has specifically appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet national emergencies.

When Congress gives a president express power to exercise his discretion to declare a National Emergency, and when the president declares an emergency, the president is not operating under a vague claim of "inherent" or "implied" presidential powers. He is acting under a specific delegation of power granted by Congress.

One thing is absolutely clear in this political battle: Congress has given presidents broad discretion to say what amounts to a national emergency. The 1976 National Emergencies Act vested that discretion in the president, and not in any federal judge or anyone else.

And there is no claim that the act anywhere states that the president cannot exercise his discretion if he adjudges that one million people entering this country illegally is a national emergency.

The real question, therefore, that will come before the courts is: Did Congress appropriate funds, or authorize the president to re-allocate appropriated funds to be used at the president's discretion to meet a national emergency?

If it did, the president wins. If not, he loses. When Congress specifically directs the president to exercise his discretion when he finds that a national emergency exists, when he does so, he operates under his express Constitutional power to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Similarly, if he is given discretion to use funds appropriated for defense as he deems best, and he does so, he is also operating under his express Constitutional power as commander-in-chief.