irishthinker

Thursday, July 18, 2019

Sweatshop Labor, New Face of International Slavery



                   "Multinational corporations ... should not be paying workers starvation wages." 
                                                                     Bernie Sanders, June 14, 2018, "Not Me. Us"

In the 1990s, Nike was accused by human rights and labor activists of "building its corporate wealth upon the backs of Asian sweatshop laborers" because it used cheap Asian labor to produce its shoes and other sporting goods.

Eight years later, company founder Phil Knight promised to eliminate the use of sweatshop labor. It appears that promise has not been kept.


In March of 2017 the International Labor Rights Forum charged that Nike had “turned its back” on labor agreements, effectively preventing independent monitors from reviewing conditions in many of its overseas factories.

Other groups say Nike has continued to employ predatory labor practices against women in many of its Asian factories. They argue female workers, who account for 85% of all workers in Nike's Vietnam shoe factories, are paid less than a dollar an hour for a 48-hour work week.

Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., states, “Nike is a symbol of everything wrong with the corporate economy. ... They take advantage of our laws. They send jobs overseas for sweatshop wages, partner with repressive regimes, and aggressively avoid paying any U.S. taxes.”


In May of 2014, Matthew Kish wrote in the Portland Business Journal that "a new report from Nike about its efforts to become a 'top corporate citizen,' does not include information about the wages paid to its roughly 1 million contract factory workers. ... The company released its 'corporate responsibility report' this month, but it did not include a table showing the average wages at the 785 contract factories that make Nike products."

In its report, Nike admits that wages for its factory workers remain one of three priorities. Twenty-one years after Nike's Knight promised to clean up the sweatshop problems, employee wages, worker representation and excessive overtime remain unfixed to the advantage of Nike corporate profits.

The most recent data on what Nike pays its Asian factory workers comes from 2001. In Bangladesh, it paid roughly $36.01 per month. In Vietnam, $73.94. In India, $75.79.

A person who works a 48-hour work week, works about 208 hours per month. In India, that would be about 37¢ per hour.

The wages that Nike currently pays appear to be a closely guarded corporate secret. In September 2018, Newsweek wrote, "The amount factory workers earn making Nike products varies depending on the facility and the country. Nike did not immediately respond to Newsweek's request for comment and clarification about how much it pays workers on average."

Would that suggest that Nike doesn't want the American public to know how much it's paying laborers?

Newsweek added, "A June report from the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) alleged that factory workers today receive even less of Nike profits than they did in the 1990s."
According to CCC, 'The share of production costs of Nike and Adidas shoes that ends up in a worker's pocket is now a staggering 30 percent less than in the early 1990s (2.5 percent in 2017 for Nike shoes compared with 4 percent in 1995) ... The company has transferred much of its manufacturing to Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam as wages have increased in China.
"In the three southeast Asian nations, average earnings for garment workers are 45 to 65 percent below the so-called living wage ..."
If an Indian worker earns 37¢ per hour, that worker earns $2.96 for an 8-hour day. Compare that with prices for Nike Air Jordans.
Go to Amazon. Fourteen styles pop up. The first six are fairly representative of the others: Nike Mens Air Jordan 4 Retro Basketball Shoe, $170.95;. Nike Air Jordan Legacy 312 Men's Fashion-Sneakers,  $91.98-$349.73; Jordan Nike Men's Air 3 Retro Basketball Shoes, $278.14-$611.60; Nike Jordan Men's Air Jordan 1 mid-Leather, $99.95; Nike Mens Air Jordan Spizike Basketball Shoes, $169.41; Jordan Air 1 Retro High Flyknit, $155.00-$660.40.
In its 2018 annual report, Nike asserts, "Management is committed to maintaining an environment where all Nike employees have the opportunity to reach their full potential."
Could you reach your full potential at 37¢ an hour? Nike is a multi-national corporation. That has afforded Nike three great advantages:
1.  It derives 58% of its revenues from outside the U.S.
2.  It pays pennies to hire its work force.
3. Nike uses sweatshop labor to maximize its profits.
It could not do better using slave labor? On this issue, Sanders is right.


Newsweek added, "A June report from the Clean Clothes Campaign (CCC) alleged that factory workers today receive even less of Nike profits than they did in the 1990s."

According to CCC, 'The share of production costs of Nike and Adidas shoes that ends up in a worker's pocket is now a staggering 30 percent less than in the early 1990s (2.5 percent in 2017 for Nike shoes compared with 4 percent in 1995) ... The company has transferred much of its manufacturing to Indonesia, Cambodia and Vietnam as wages have increased in China.

"In the three southeast Asian nations, average earnings for garment workers are 45 to 65 percent below the so-called living wage ..."

If an Indian worker earns 37¢ per hour, that worker earns $2.96 for an 8-hour day. Compare that with prices for Nike Air Jordans.

Go to Amazon. Fourteen styles pop up. The first six are fairly representative of the others: Nike Mens Air Jordan 4 Retro Basketball Shoe, $170.95;. Nike Air Jordan Legacy 312 Men's Fashion-Sneakers, $91.98-$349.73; Jordan Nike Men's Air 3 Retro Basketball Shoes, $278.14-$611.60; Nike Jordan Men's Air Jordan 1 mid-Leather, $99.95; Nike Mens Air Jordan Spizike Basketball Shoes, $169.41; Jordan Air 1 Retro High Flyknit, $155.00-$660.40.

In its 2018 annual report, Nike asserts, "Management is committed to maintaining an environment where all Nike employees have the opportunity to reach their full potential."

Could you reach your full potential at 37¢ an hour? Working a 48 hour week?

Nike is a multi-national corporation. That has afforded Nike three great advantages:

1. It derives 58% of its revenues from outside the U.S.

2. It pays pennies to hire its work force.

3. Nike uses sweatshop labor to maximize its profits.


Nike could not do better profit-wise using slave labor. On this issue, Sen. Sanders is right.


Posted: QCOline.com   July 18, 2019

Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea




Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 8:50 AM No comments:
Labels: Is sweatshoop labor slavery? What is Nike paying its laborers in its Asian factories? Bernie Sanders correctly says "multinational corporations should not be paying workers starvation wages."

Thursday, July 11, 2019

Can US afford to buy what Sanders is selling?


Don Wooten and I have at least one thing in common: We both like ancient Greek tragedy.

Every time I hear Sen. Bernie Sanders glibly proclaim that if we only trash the present American health-care system, and adopt a single-payer system, the American health-care system will be vastly improved, my thoughts recur to Euripides, The Bacchae: "A man whose glibness flows from his own conceit, is a worthless and stupid citizen."


On June 18, our Rock Island County Board voted to put Hope Creek Care Center up for sale. The county care facility is $7.5 million in debt. Running the facility at a profit has never been the goal. Sadly, the county has been unable to break even. (If the county imposed a one-time $53 tax on every resident of the county, that would cure the $7.5 million deficit, and give Hope Creek a fresh start.)


So why is there any reason to believe that the U.S. government can run a nationwide health-care system, caring for 330 million people from Maine to Hawaii and from Florida to Alaska from headquarters in Washington D.C., when Rock Island County can't manage its small care facility in East Moline? Have we forgotten the problems of the VA?

If Hope Creek is sold, about 220 employees could lose their jobs and some employment benefits. At present, it is estimated that there are 500,000 workers employed by the health insurance companies, such as Aetna and Blue Cross.


Issue No. 1: What happens to those 500,000 health-care employees if the U.S. adopts a single-payer system? Is there even one single-payer advocate addressing this issue?


If we go to single-payer, do the 500,000 lose their jobs? Benefits? If they are transferred to the federal payroll, will the cost to the taxpayers be less than the cost to their former private employers? If so, how does that save any money? Will those who aren't transferred be replaced by new federal workers? If those who aren't transferred are re-trained for new jobs in other industries, what will that cost?


Will the cost of new federal employees, plus the cost of employees transferred from the private sector, plus the cost of re-training those not transferred, exceed what the private sector was paying its 500,000 employees?


And what about workers in related industries? Under single-payer, will the number of employees in hospitals, care centers, and doctors' offices remain the same? And if the numbers decrease, what happens to those workers? Do they go on unemployment or into job re-training?


Issue No. 2: Are American's better off destroying the present systems of coverage and going to single-payer? Total U.S. population (2016): 325,000,000. Covered by Medicare: 53,000,000. Employer plans: 155,000,000. Non-employer private plans: 90,000,000. Veteran's Administration: 15,000,000 Uninsured: 27,000,000.


In 2016, 91.2% of Americans had health insurance coverage and 8.8% didn't. That 8.8% will certainly be better off if we go to a single-payer system, but what percentage of Americans will receive less desirable coverage or substantially inferior coverage?


Would we be better off bringing the 8.8% into the present system? How many of the 8.8% already are on Medicaid?



Issue No. 3: Canada has a single-payer system. The Fraser Institute evaluates the Canadian experience from year to year. Have things gotten better or worse in Canada over the years? They advise that a key indicator is wait time: the time between referral by a general practitioner to a specialist and receipt of treatment. Fraser's answer: substantially worse.


The average Canadian wait time in 2018 was 19.8 weeks; up from 9.3 weeks in 1993. The wait consists of two components: an average 8.7 weeks wait to see the specialist; and an additional 11 weeks to obtain the treatment. In 2018, Canadians could expect to wait an average of 4.3 weeks for a CT scan, 10.6 weeks for an MRI, and 3.9 weeks for an ultrasound.


When the patient is suffering pain, a wait time is not his friend. Wait times can result in poorer medical outcomes. They can transform potentially reversible illnesses/ injuries into chronic, or irreversible conditions, or even permanent disabilities.


When I hurt my knee golfing, it didn't take me 19.8 weeks with my present insurance to see a specialist and get my MRI. What have your wait times been with your private plan or Medicare? Should 91.2% of Americans plunge into the unknown to provide insurance for 8.8%? Or is there a better alternative?


Simply put: Are you willing to buy the Sander's snake-oil elixir

Posted: QCOline.com   July 11, 2019




Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea


Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 7:17 AM No comments:
Labels: 000, 000 Americans?, Sanders - the snake-oil salesman, What are the hidden costs of Medicare-for-all, Why destroy a medical system that is serving 300

Thursday, July 4, 2019

The "Rights" of Citizenship? What about the "Duties?"


Are you old enough to recall President Jack Kennedy's inaugural address? "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

When was the last time you can recall any other American president or candidate asking a similar question?

Is that what the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls are asking? Or are they, without exception, asking, "Don't ask what you can do for yourself or for your country; ask what your country can do for you?"


Sen. Bernie Sanders believes Medicare-for-All is a "right." Sen. Elizabeth Warren believes there is a "right" to universal child care. Candidates Sanders, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Warren, Kristen Gillibrand, et al, believe black Americans have a "right" to reparations.

Warren believes the "right" might also properly be accorded to Native Americans, and couple days ago she added that she thinks reparations should also be paid to the LGBTQ community.

Sanders, Warren and Harris believe that that there is a "right" to free tuition at community colleges, and a "right" to free tuition at four-year colleges for families with incomes less than $125,000.

And, of course, there are those who promised to pay for their college education and then accepted room, board and education. Now they claim a "right" to have their college debt forgiven, and Sanders, Warren and others would support that "right."

Gillibrand, Booker and Sanders, believe every American "seeking work" has a "right" to a government job that would pay at least $15 per hour.

Then there are those who believe in a "right" to two-weeks paid vacation, paid family leave, and the old favorite, the $15 minimum wage.

Last Thursday night, Harris told the nation that she wants a new refundable $6,000 tax credit for families earning up to $100,000. If the family paid less then $6,000 in federal income tax, it would get a check from the U.S. Treasury for the difference. At a time when liberals are suddenly decrying "Trump deficits," this would cost the Treasury a mere $762 billion annually.


So, which candidate has spent even 30 seconds discussing the "duties" of citizenship? Or are they all too busy playing Santa?

Can we even agree that there still are "duties" of citizenship in 21st century America? If so, what are those "duties" in modern America? To vote? To do jury duty? To serve in the armed forces? I do not attempt to make a comprehensive list. I leave that to you.

I suggest that it is the "duty" of every able-bodied citizen to pay at least 1% of his income in federal income taxes. I suggest that no citizens should vote to increase the taxes paid by his fellow citizens, unless he votes to increase his own taxes in the same percentage.

I suggest that no citizen should demand his fellow citizens afford him "rights" that he is not willing to help pay for himself. And I suggest that it is the "duty" of every citizen to treat his fellow citizen -- rich or poor -- as he insists they treat him. Unless the Golden Rule is practiced by all, taxation degenerates into plunder; citizenry into a mob.


If no politician is discussing the "duties" of a citizen, why aren't they? Or do "rights" now come without "duties?"

Kennedy and Harry Truman were the heroes of my youth. At last week's debates, they would have been jeered off the stage. Their seats have been taken by socialist like Sanders and Marxist-sympathizers like Bill DeBlasio.


                 (If you doubt me, read JFK's Dec. 14, 1962 address to the Economic Club of New York.)


Posted: QCOline.com   July 4, 2019




Copyright 2019, John Donald O'Shea






























Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 5:52 AM No comments:
Labels: Duties of Citizenship; Golden Rule of Citizenship

Thursday, June 20, 2019

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





Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 5:08 AM No comments:
Labels: Abortion - the legal right to kill the innocent, Roe v. Wade authorizes the killing of innocent human persons, What good is a church that will not oppose the killing of innocent children?

Thursday, June 13, 2019

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




Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 7:37 AM No comments:
Labels: Impeachment - Criminal or Political, Impeachment - views of Fouding Fathers

Thursday, June 6, 2019

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

Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 7:18 AM No comments:
Labels: Fix Social Security and Medicare, Medicare Part SA fast becomeing insolvent, or create new entitlements?, Social Secuirty fast becoming insolvent

Thursday, May 23, 2019

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

Posted by John Donald O'Shea at 4:55 AM No comments:
Labels: " Five Trillion Dollar Deficits, Everything is free for Ocasio-Cortez, Ocasio-Cortez's "Modern Monetary Theory, Quantitative Easing and Ocasio-Cortez
Newer Posts Older Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Blog Archive

  • ▼  2025 (2)
    • ▼  January (2)
      • Spare the Murders; kill the innocent
      • Enough “lawfare;” it’s time to govern
  • ►  2024 (17)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (1)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (1)
  • ►  2023 (25)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  July (4)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (5)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (1)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2022 (29)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (2)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (1)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2021 (23)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2020 (29)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (1)
    • ►  October (2)
    • ►  September (2)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (4)
    • ►  May (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2019 (38)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (4)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (4)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2018 (37)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (4)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2017 (36)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2016 (37)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (4)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (4)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (4)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2015 (36)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2014 (36)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ►  2013 (33)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (4)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (3)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2012 (34)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (3)
    • ►  June (3)
    • ►  May (3)
    • ►  April (3)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (2)
  • ►  2011 (18)
    • ►  December (2)
    • ►  November (3)
    • ►  October (1)
    • ►  September (3)
    • ►  August (3)
    • ►  July (2)
    • ►  June (4)
  • ►  2007 (6)
    • ►  March (2)
    • ►  January (4)

About Me

My photo
John Donald O'Shea
John Donald O'Shea is a lawyer and a retired circuit court judge. He served twenty-six years in that latter position. He was originally elected for a six year term in 1974, and there after was retained in office for four more six year terms. He retired in Janury of 2000. He was graduated from the University of Notre Dame (BA), and from the University of Notre Dame Law School (JD). He is a paid op ed writer for the Moline Dispatch, where the op eds posted here first appeared. He is also a published playwright (see: irishplaywright.blogspot.com). The Plays listed here, except as noted, have been written for and performed by junior high and high school casts, as well as community theaters.
View my complete profile
Simple theme. Powered by Blogger.