testsite_tjohara – Page 11

Don’t waste your vote on a Democrat or Republican

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 5, 2012– On November 6th, the presidential auction will be over and the Office will be awarded to one of the two highest bidders. The word “auction” seems eminently more appropriate than “election” because we have forsaken the sacred trust that the Framers created for us. The Party duopoly, which currently masquerades under the Democrat and Republican names that used to have real meaning, will spend several billion dollars to purchase your vote. The question is: Do you care and, if so, are you willing to do something about it?

Let’s do a reality check.

President Obama and former Governor Romney are willing pawns in the auction. They have already surrendered their ability to lead independently to the Parties in return for the enormous sum of money and the huge infrastructure the Parties have provided to place a “reserve” on the Office that no other candidate can reach.

They have been molded by their image consultants and taught to read the carefully scripted words that appear on their TelePrompTers. We may never know what they really believe. We only know how their professional writers have prepared their lines based upon the direction of their strategists, who have diligently sifted through poll data, keeping only those facts that are favorable to the candidate and his Party.

After the election, the “winner” will be paraded around the country for four years to fill the seats at Party fundraisers and at rallies for other Party candidates. He will be required to appoint Cabinet Members, Senior White House staff, and United States Ambassadors as directed by his Party in repayment of the massive political debts that were accumulated during the campaign. The President will also be obligated to rail against the other member of the duopoly; claiming that all problems emanated from the other Party or that the “opposition” blocked every effort to make progress.

This is not to suggest that either of the major Party candidates is sinister in any way. It is simply to state the truth.

One need not look further than President Obama’s schedule this year. Has he spent that 25 percent of his term working diligently on the People’s business, or has he been distracted and relatively ineffective because of the demands of the campaign? That’s what the winning Party commands from its President.

What about your President? How would you like to see him or her behave while in office, and what can you do about it? Let’s examine the current system to determine your options.

As the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States, I can offer some personal insight.

I immediately recognized that neither I nor any other Third Party candidate could meet the billion-dollar “reserve” of the presidential auction. Until meaningful campaign reform is secured, that will continue to be a reality.

As I addressed in The 1st Amendment and the failure of a Free Press, the ever-escalating price tag of the presidential auction inures to the benefit of the traditional media. So, the media has declined to tear down the economic communication barrier that has been put in place by the duopoly.

The Parties have also worked hard to erect other obstacles at the State-level to preclude any legitimate “bidders.”

Ballot certification (the process of securing one’s name on the ballot) is essentially provided for free to Democrats and Republicans and certain other well-established third parties. However, it would cost independent and alternative Third Party candidates tens of millions of dollars to have their names printed on the ballots of the 50 States.

In lieu thereof, one can pursue ballot qualification as a write-in candidate. You might think that this should be relatively easy and uniform throughout the States when it comes to the Presidency. You would be wrong.

Almost every State has a different set of requirements and filing dates, which makes the process more difficult and expensive.

Several States celebrate Liberty and embrace FEC-registered write-in candidates for President with minimal filing requirements.

Eight States (Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota) do not permit write-in votes under any circumstance. In other words, you apparently have lost the right to exercise free speech or to petition the Government for a redress of grievances in the form of a vote in these eight States.

Many other States are either unaware of the Twelfth Amendment or simply choose to ignore it. I say this because these States require a presidential candidate to file a Declaration of Intent that also identifies a Vice Presidential candidate and provides his or her address and signature. This would not be unreasonable except for the fact that the Twelfth Amendment specifically requires the States to provide separate ballots for President and Vice President. Of course, the Parties would prefer to have you believe that you have to vote for these positions as a ticket, but the Twelfth Amendment says otherwise.

I raise this point because, as a non-partisan candidate who recognizes that I would have to work with members of every Party, I chose to entrust the Vice Presidential decision to the People. In States that required the name of a Vice President, I filed a Declaration of Intent that clearly indicated that I would serve with whomever the People elected to that Office in accordance with the Twelfth Amendment. Many of these States returned my Declaration because I “failed to name a Vice President.”

When I contacted these States, they pointed to their State law that made the name, address, and signature of my Vice Presidential candidate a requirement. In return, I pointed to Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States that states: “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Also known as the Supremacy Clause, many of the State officials acknowledged that the Twelfth Amendment would take precedence over their State’s law but told me that they would need a legal opinion, which they couldn’t secure until after the election because they were “busy.”

It’s time to wake up, America!

I am ballot-qualified as a write-in in a large number of States. However, for those who want to know whether I am ballot-qualified in their State, the truth is that it is irrelevant. The same can be said for any other ballot-certified or ballot-qualified candidate who does not have the surname Obama or Romney. None of us will be honored to serve as the next President of the United States. However, if you have taken the time to become informed, you should honor our country by voting for the candidate you believe has the best ability and ideas to lead our great Nation.

The Parties have conditioned you to believe that voting your conscience is a “wasted” vote. They will tell you that your only option is to vote for “the lesser of two evils.” If you are frustrated by the Parties and/or their candidates but are paralyzed by the fear they have created, allow me to introduce you to another alternative.

For those of you who have the courage to vote your conscience, simply vote for whomever you believe is the best candidate.

For those who are frustrated but still driven by fear, here is a strategy just for you:

If you are a Republican living in California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, or Washington, vote for me (T.J. O’Hara) because, within the context of the Electoral College, your vote for former Governor Romney really won’t count.

If you are a Democrat living in Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, or Wyoming, vote for me (T.J. O’Hara) because, within the context of the Electoral College, your vote for President Obama really won’t count.

If you live in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, or Wisconsin, please feel free to vote out of fear because your State is still in play.

For all other States, they either preclude write-in candidates or there is an outside chance your vote (either way) might make a difference.

I still won’t be elected, but my campaign will have been a success because I will have created a more informed and empowered electorate. You will have won because you will have sent a strong message to the Parties. In the words of fictional news anchor, Howard Beale, in the 1976 movie classic, Network, it’s time to tell the world, “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

Voting is an incredible privilege that is undervalued by many of our citizens and desecrated by others. It is a freedom that too many of us have taken for granted and allowed to be compromised by the major Parties. On November 6th, please go to the polls as an informed member of the electorate and experience what it’s like to vote your conscience.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years.

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

The First Amendment and the Failure of a Free Press

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 26, 2012 – There is an inherent responsibility that goes with “freedom of the press” under the First Amendment. In this year’s Presidential election, it has become painfully apparent that the media has abandoned that responsibility.

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom…of the press.” The Framers believed that a free press was necessary to protect the People. A free press embodied the independent mechanism by which the Framers could guarantee that falsehoods would be exposed and that the facts would be delivered to assure an informed electorate. Unfortunately, those days are long gone.

Today, the press is far from free. In fact, with rare exceptions, it seems to carry an enormous price tag. Nowhere is the decay of the press more evident than in its treatment of the Presidential campaign.

Coverage is driven more by ratings than by responsibility; more by money than by merit.

I must confess that perhaps I am biased in my assessment. My father was in the newspaper business. I grew up around men and women whom I can best describe as “serious reporters.” They didn’t need to call themselves journalists to fulfill a narcissistic need for acceptance. Instead, they let their actions speak every bit as loudly as their words.

Reporters were driven to surface the truth. They worked endless hours for meager wages. Their real compensation was in having the knowledge that they served their readers with integrity. In return, they were revered by the general public.

This phenomenon wasn’t restricted to those in the newspaper business. It clearly extended to the news anchors on radio and television, and the true broadcast journalists who commanded respect because they had earned it.

Today, far too many “journalists” have been led to believe they are celebrities and, as celebrities, that their opinions matter more than the facts. It has become increasingly difficult to read, watch or listen to their biased delivery of the news.

During the 2012 Presidential election, they clearly picked their Party early. The progressive side of the media had an easier time since their candidate was essentially ordained to represent the Democratic Party. The conservative element of the media had to wait until the Republican Party finally settled on its standard bearer.

Both sides made a veritable fortune from the bloodbath of Republican debates. When that political equivalent of reality TV concluded, the traditional mudslinging began; yet another bonanza of advertising dollars.

Hundreds of millions of dollars poured into media of all kinds. The marketing products were generally devoid of substance and almost always bereft of any semblance of integrity. By November 6th, the two major Parties will have run approximately 3.6 million campaign ads.

You should ask yourself, “Why?”

The unadulterated truth is that the Parties are engaging in behavioral modification. They wish to create a belief that their “opponent” is so satanic that life on Earth will cease to exist if he is elected. It is a strategy that appeals to our basic instinct of survival and is firmly rooted in fear.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.” Today, we live in a political environment that is predicated upon fear. Think about it.

Of course, the media was quick to learn that money could be made upon fostering the fear; not only directly through political ads but by the ratings surge that impacted other ad rates (i.e., the bigger the “share,” the more the media can charge for ads).

As a result, the media plays favorites. One side panders to the progressive element, and one side panders to the conservative element.

The candidates themselves are relevantly unimportant since they are essentially only puppets in the play. Of course, they will carry the torches of their respective Parties because they owe their Parties hundreds of millions of dollars. This benefits the media because it makes the storylines easier to prepare. The stories, scripts, and headlines can be prepared in advance because there is almost no risk of being confronted by an original thought.

This paradigm works well for the Parties and the media because it allows both to segment their audiences demographically. In turn, this promotes more cost-effective marketing. The Parties and the media can target specific segments of our society rather than having to actually address the public at large.

From a marketing perspective, it is unfortunate that the Constitution began with the words “We the People.” Had it begun with “We the white, Protestant, unemployed, single females, between the ages of 20 and 24” or “We the Hispanic, Catholic, small business owner, married males between the ages of 45 and 50,” things would be so much easier for the Parties and the media.

If you don’t believe this, go to the President’s website store and see what is for sale. President Obama was positioned to be our Nation’s great “Uniter;” the one who would bring us together rather than drive us apart. Notice the themes you can purchase from his website’s store (listed alphabetically):

African Americans for Obama
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders for Obama
Environmentalists for Obama
Hispanics for Obama
Jewish Americans for Obama
Latinos for Obama
LGBT for Obama
Nurses for Obama
Veterans and Military Families for Obama
Women for Obama

Lest you believe that the divisive focus is unique to one Party, visit Governor Romney’s website store where you can buy theme-based items as follows (listed alphabetically):

Catholics for Romney
Coal Country for Romney
I’m a Mom for Romney
Juntos con Romney
Veterans for Romney
Women for Romney
Young Americans for Romney

[As an aside, I am the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States. If you visit my website, you will not find a store. It’s not because we couldn’t build one or couldn’t stock it with tchotchke items to raise more money. It’s because I’m a serious candidate for the Office of President of the United States, and I believe that Office deserves our highest degree of respect.]

The media doesn’t really care which candidate is elected because it doesn’t impact cash flow either way. The Parties have come to accept the fact that they will trade “wins” over time, so that isn’t an issue either. As long as no one new is allowed to enter the picture, everything will be just fine…and that is the problem.

The traditional media is complicit in maintaining the status quo the Parties fight so desperately to preserve. Once the news media became a profit center, it defaulted to only tracking those candidates “who have a chance to win.” The reality is that the media’s refusal to report the existence of candidates, who either cannot afford to buy ads or who do not believe their candidacy should be marketed as if it were a cheap product, precludes such candidates from gaining sufficient exposure to have a serious impact on the election.

There is no need to fear that Congress shall ever be tempted to “make (a) law…abridging the freedom…of the press.” The press has effectively restricted its own freedom. It has sacrificed its autonomy for the seductive lure of the Parties’ money and for the ease of only reporting the news that is delivered to its doorstep.

Vetting legitimate independent and third-party candidates would require a dedication to presenting the truth that seems to have eroded over time. It would require real work.

A few of the Parties, such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party have sufficient capital to merit superficial coverage, but less established Parties such as the Justice Party, the Reform Party and the Modern Whig Party are never “invited to the dance,” and a true independent is almost uniformly dismissed.

The losers in this “game” are the People. They are denied exposure to legitimate alternative candidates who may better serve our Nation’s interests.

Imagine a President who wasn’t beholden to a particular Party; a President who could consider every alternative rather than just those that fit a particular Party platform; a President who would work for four years without the interruptions caused by having to attend Party fundraisers, campaign on behalf of other Party candidates, or even campaign for re-election; a President who truly reported to the People rather than a Party. Now, compare that to our current political model. Which do you prefer? More importantly, why is it likely that you aren’t even aware you had that exact choice this time?

The question you should ask is: “Is there any hope?” The answer is: “Absolutely!”

Hundreds of thousands, and possibly millions of people will have the courage to cast a vote for the actual candidate of their choice rather than for one whom they’ve been driven by fear to support. The experience will be cathartic.

They will feel exuberant because they will have voted with personal integrity. They will also gain a sense of power from knowing that they still have the Liberty to vote their conscience.

In the past, this experience and knowledge would be localized and shared by such voters only with their close family, friends, and associates. Today, it will be shared with the world.

Social media has the capacity to reduce the stranglehold of the major Parties and of their co-conspirator, the traditional media. Witness the viral growth of the TEA Party, the Arab Spring, and Occupy Wall Street just to name a few.

Web-based shows like Mark Jerrel’s Hipolitix and L. Dean Latham’s The Balanced Approach have broken the mold. They offer interesting, thoughtful discussions of contemporary political issues and are open to everyone regardless of Party affiliation.

Mark Jerrel’s program provides a forum for the hip-hop generation. Mr. Jerrel is a political science graduate and offers one of the most compelling Q&A sessions anywhere.

Mr. Latham has taken Presidential programming a step further by offering the first web-based debate among Presidential candidates. The Town Hall-style format is open to every Presidential candidate. As a participant in his first Presidential Town Hall Debate, I can point to three contrasts with what we have been conditioned to accept by the Committee on Presidential Debates: (1) the discussions were civil, (2) no one interrupted, and (3) everyone actually answered the questions that were asked. His next Presidential Town Hall Debate is scheduled for November 2nd (9:00 PM EDT / 6:00 PM PDT).

Programs like these, web-based media, and individual blogs are why there is hope.

Additionally, during my campaign trips, I have predominantly spoken at universities and high schools. Those audiences represented a generation that will have to pay for our mistakes. They recognize the problem and are looking for solutions. The vast majority of them also demonstrated a proclivity for separating reality from rhetoric.

Did I mention that they are extremely knowledgeable in the area of social networking? This is a warning to the traditional media paradigm and to the Parties. Your “fifteen minutes of fame” may be about to end. The next generation doesn’t like what it sees, and it knows how to share that message. You may be forced to contend with a new kind of leader as a result: one who is focused on fixing our problems rather than fixing the blame.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Jobs and the Economy: A Presidential Candidate’s Private Sector Approach

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 14, 2012 – Our Nation is facing serious challenges that require serious solutions. The Democrat and Republican Parties have enormous resources that they have chosen to use to craft perpetual campaigns. After four years of partisan name-calling, we are left with sound bites rather than solutions. Rather than offering definitive plans, we are asked to accept the rhetoric of fear.

Democrats argue that a vote for the Republican candidate is a vote “to return to the failed policies of the past.” Republicans argue that our country can’t afford to continue the “failed policies of the present.” Neither Party states what it will actually do other than in vague generalities. That may be because they can’t since both Parties are committed to offering recycled political solutions.

Albert Einstein once said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Rather than default to a political solution that by definition requires public sector resources, allow me to offer a radically different approach: one focused on private sector solutions. After all, our Nation’s problems ultimately impact the private sector. So, why not try to resolve them there … without Government intervention or the need to spend taxpayer dollars?

First, let’s examine the characteristics of public sector solutions to better understand why it may be better to avoid them.

The Government does not produce any tangible product. Instead, it consumes monetary resources under the guise of providing the necessary regulation of elements of our society. If the Government were to remain focused on the purposes described in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution (i.e., “to provide for the Common Defense and General Welfare of the United States”), there wouldn’t be an issue. However, the Government often stretches well beyond the bounds of those words. It is at that point that problems emerge

Distinguish between public and private sectors (and sub-categories within the private sector) – Also differentiate between Controllable / Non-Controllable elements of any particular problem.

Public Sector

Every single tax dollar is subject to the following truism:

Inefficient utilization of funds (regulatory/compliance/enforcement)
Historically ineffective (unmeasured and no consequence for failure)
Usually unwarranted (under Art, I Sec. 8) and merely reflective of a habitual quest to expand political power and control

Given that reality, I look to the private sector first. I divide the private sector into its component parts:

Charitable organizations
Educational institutions
Privately-held companies
Publicly-traded companies

Next, I focus on what’s controllable versus non-controllable, what resources can be leveraged, and what cooperative initiatives can be developed between these groups, either independent from the Government or with limited Governmental assistance. But before we explore those types of alliances, I would like to distinguish between privately held companies and publicly traded companies.

One of the few things upon which Democrats and Republicans seem capable of agreeing is that small business is the true economic engine of our Nation’s economy.

Generally speaking, small businesses are privately held.

Rule #1: Get out of their way! Do not layer needless costs on these businesses by way of non-essential regulatory control. Where licensing and regulation is appropriate, the Government should administer it responsibly (i.e., processing should not be monetarily burdensome nor should it be subject to undue delays – file the forms, pay the fees, and get a response in a timely manner).
Rule #2: If the Government is going to stimulate job growth and economic expansion, do it here, where access to capital is disproportionately restricted as opposed to well-established or politically-favored, publicly traded companies.
Rule #3: Do not tamper with the income of those who have taken all the risks and personally sacrificed significant aspects of their lives to build a successful company.

Now, let’s jump to publicly traded companies for a moment.

Level the playing field. If legislative mistakes have permitted some industries to become “Too Big to Fail,” correct the legislative mistake … level the playing field so that every company competes under the same rules. I encourage you to research which publically traded companies donate the most to the campaigns of the Party candidates (through their corporate PACs and/or union PACs as well as their senior executives) and compare that list to which companies have been deemed “Too Big to Fail.”

Look at who receives waivers from programs like the Affordable Care Act as well. If you find a correlation, you should at least be suspicious.
Secondly, the Democrats are right when they point to the growing income gap between middle-class Americans and, as they term it, the “rich.” While they don’t necessarily seem to grasp the impact of zeros behind a number (often confusing those with an income of $250,000 a year with “millionaires and billionaires”) the growing gap does present a serious problem.
Unfortunately, raising tax rates for the rich not only wouldn’t make a serious dent in our Nation’s debt (and if President Clinton would like me to do the arithmetic for him, I would be happy to do so), but it also only masks the problem rather than fixing it. Taking money away from the “rich” to ineffectively spend it does not “close the gap.”

So, let me tell you how the private sector can heal itself without the Government’s intervention in this regard.

Executive compensation has gotten out of control within many publicly traded companies. Their Boards have fallen prey to the same misplaced fears that professional sports franchises have: that they have to keep escalating salaries to retain “talent.” Note: that unlike owners of privately-held companies, the executives at publicly traded companies rarely, if ever, participated directly in the risk and sacrifice that led to the company’s success.
Let’s assume that a particular CEO is paid $55 million a year. I guarantee you that, somewhere out there, there is another talented individual who could perform every bit as well for (let’s be extremely generous) $5 million a year.
Now, the company would have freed $50 million to finance job growth that would otherwise be unobtainable; job growth that would improve productivity, development, or service and be accretive to the tax base and provide for economic expansion (since the newly employed individuals are consumers in their own right)
But what if the company instead chooses to spend the $50 million on state-of-the-art equipment instead of people? All things being equal, either profits go up or prices go down, either of which serves to stimulate the economy.
But what if the company decides not to reinvest the $50 million and instead distributes it to its shareholders? The shareholders have three options:
#1 – They will be taxed on the proceeds and may spend the balance, which in turn would stimulate the economy
#2 – They could put the money in a bank, which would in turn make it available for loans, which in turn would stimulate the economy
#3 – they could reinvest it in one or more other companies, which in turn would stimulate the economy.

Here’s where you come in. Publicly traded companies are publicly held. You don’t have to wait for a political election to begin to assert your rights as a shareholder. Demand that the Compensation Committees and Boards of the publicly traded companies in which you hold shares bring executive compensation in alignment with reality (whereas today, it’s nearly 360 times the income of an average American). You have that power today and, as President, I would make sure that everyone became aware of how that power can be used to correct the problem rather than mask it. Note that no Government interference was required, no taxpayer dollars were spent, and the problem got fixed sooner rather than later.

Why don’t you hear these types of recommendations from Party candidates: (a) either because they lack the private sector experience to even recognize them; or (b) because there is absolutely no political benefit to be derived from fixing the problem without the intervention of the Government.

Now, let’s go back and briefly discuss the cooperative alliances that could be established between Charitable organizations, Educational institutions, and Businesses.

I would work with businesses to identify ways excess food and inventory could be shared with Charitable organizations and Educational institutions to help lower their operating costs and more directly provide resources to those in need. That would reduce the need for Government programs to address the same need in a significantly less efficient manner.

I would also work with businesses to establish cooperative programs with Universities and trade schools that would align the employment needs of the businesses with the curricula focus of the Educational institutions. Let’s create an educational pathway that leads to long-term employment and enhances our competitiveness on a global basis.

Correspondingly, if the Government were to get involved in the Business and Education alliances, perhaps one of the more effective areas in which it could participate would be in transferring declassified technologies to these alliances to accelerate research and development. Consider this: as a taxpayer, you have already paid for a plethora of technology that has been developed for the public sector but that has not been deployed in the private sector. To the degree that these technologies are no longer classified, why not leverage those tax dollars and share them with our educational institutes and businesses? Arrangements could even be made with respect to any patents that evolved from such redeployment so that the American people could recapture some of the original cost of the incorporated technologies through future royalties. Under this scenario, the educational institutions win, the businesses win, and the taxpayers win.

Party candidates pontificate about what legislation they will pass and what they will repeal on their “first day in office” or in their second term. The truth is that Article II does not give the President any authority to pass or repeal any legislation. The best a President can do from a legislative perspective is to influence legislative direction.

As the head of the Executive Branch of Government, the President can directly impact the operating efficiency and effectiveness of that Branch … and should.

Conversely, it might be more accurate to suggest that many of our Nation’s problems originate with the Government when it attempts to influence issues that have little to do with the constraints imposed by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution (i.e., “to provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States”).

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

America: When would you like your wake-up call?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 14, 2012– With the General Election looming, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Republican National Committee (RNC) are about to don full battle gear to fight for their most coveted trophy: the Office of President of the United States. They have amassed their image consultants, pollsters, political strategists, and professional speech writers to package and “sell” their candidates, President Obama and former Governor Romney, to the unsuspecting public.

The Parties will raise and spend approximately $1 billion apiece to “win” the Presidency. What was once the most revered office in the world has become little more than a political trophy. It is leveraged by the Parties (regardless of which one “wins”) to further that Party’s interests to the detriment of every American.

The next President will be required to spend a considerable amount of time doing the bidding of his Party rather than attending to the business of the People. He will travel across the country, and sometimes across the world to deliver messages that are not necessarily reflective of his own personal beliefs but rather that are consistent with the carefully constructed position of his Party.

He will campaign on behalf of other Party candidates (whom he really may not know), and he will be the honored guest at a myriad of fundraisers that are focused on helping his Party maintain and expand its power going forward. This is because the position of President has become one of “celebrity” rather than one of leadership. Having the President in attendance will attract more people to these events who, in turn, may become donors to and supporters of the Party. Leaving the President in the White House will only allow him to do his job.

Correspondingly, the next President will deftly exploit any catastrophe that captures the imagination of the American public. As Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Since many Americans have abandoned the concept of intellectually vetting the candidates in favor of voting on an emotional basis, “likeability” ratings have grown in importance. So, the Party candidates will visit sites that are likely to attract mass media coverage and will pose for photo ops that individuals with more discretion would otherwise choose to avoid.

All of this will be done at taxpayer expense, and all of this will be a diversion from the purpose for which the President was elected.

Of course, the next President will have to agree to this approach, but that negotiation has already been consummated. Individuals who declare their political allegiance to a Party (rather than the Republic), have already surrendered their ability to lead independently in return for the massive funding and infrastructure they believe they will require to “win.” At the end of the campaign, they will owe the Party and, by association, the people and organizations the Party owes.

Party-compliant Administrations return favors in the form of White House appointments. Approximately 80 percent of the senior staff appointments and nearly 50 percent of the Ambassadorships were awarded to bundlers who raised $500 thousand or more for our current President. Even with a change in occupants, the Office of the President is likely to continue this time-honored tradition. In the world of Party politics, money triumphs over merit.

In the interim, we will be treated to an occasional political gaffe when Party candidates speak extemporaneously; perhaps, giving us a brief glimpse into their authentic beliefs.

This has given way to a new phenomenon: “walking back” one’s remarks. In effect, this is the charade of pretending that a recorded moment in time doesn’t exist. Party proponents and even the candidates themselves will appear on media shows to deny that the words were ever spoken, or they will intentionally “reframe” the comment to their political advantage or embellish upon the truth.

Should we really be reduced to selecting the candidate with the best damage control team?

Unfortunately, we do not vet the depth and breadth of the Party candidates particularly well. We do not challenge their sound bites and demand solutions. We are not allowed to ask them questions for which they are not prepared, thus we gain no insight into their problem-solving skills or the thought process by which they might address such issues.

Effectively, we embrace the image that is created by their marketing team without recognizing that our Party candidates have become nothing more than a commodity product.

Yet, we tolerate this. Perhaps, it’s because we have been conditioned to believe that we have no other choice.

There are roughly 150 million citizens in the United State who are over the age of 35 and thus eligible to serve as President. We have been conditioned by the Democrats and Republicans to believe that only their candidates are worthy of consideration. Considering the Parties’ record in that regard, we should be skeptical.

We have also been conditioned to believe that an independent or third-party candidate cannot “win” the Presidency. This may actually be true because we have allowed the Parties to silently build almost insurmountable economic barriers to entry.

Why would the Parties do this? The answers include: to preclude competition; to maintain control; and to foster their own agenda.

Then, they orchestrate campaigns that are predicated upon negative emotion. The Parties trade in the currency of fear. They try to get voters to identify with a particular group so they can exploit a more narrow set of characteristics to claim that only they “feel your pain” and that the other Party is trying to trample your rights, impede your success, take something that’s yours, or more recently, even kill you.

Until you begin to express your disgust at the polls, you can expect this despicable behavior to continue. For the Parties will never allow truth and integrity to get in the way of a “win,” and if you think they can’t stoop any lower, you’re just underestimating them.

Luckily, they leave breadcrumb trails of their disingenuous behavior. Words like “radical,” “extreme,” “rich,” “poor,” and “racist” provide telltale hints, and essentially any phrase that begins with the word “they,” such as “they don’t care about you,” “they want to take that away from you,” “they don’t think you deserve that,” etc. You may rest assured that the Parties are hoping to inflame your emotions to the point that precludes your willingness to actually research the facts.

On the rare occasion that the Parties are held responsible for their behavior, they tend to default to the defense that “the other side does it too.” If this sounds like a child-like excuse, it’s because it is. It is more befitting of an exchange on an elementary school playground than it is of a Presidential campaign, but then, we tolerate name-calling as well (e.g., “Romneyhood” and “Obamaloney” just last week).

As the concept of a Republic grows dim, we move toward an era in which form triumphs over substance and money prevails over merit. We celebrate the lack of choice rather than the breadth of it. We embrace the images of the candidates rather than the substance of their ideas, and we reward those who manipulate us through fear rather than those who inspire us through independent thought.

This is America’s wake-up call. Please do not hit the “snooze” button. We cannot afford to sleep through another Federal election, or our Nation will be in danger of becoming nothing more than a dream.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

The Declaration of Independence: Circa 2012

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 4, 2012 – Today is the Fourth of July. When civics was still taught in our public schools, it was known as Independence Day. While it used to mark the birth of our Nation, today it is too often viewed as a day off work and an excuse for family picnics with fireworks displays and patriotic songs mysteriously playing in the background. To those who still care, the Declaration of Independence is a rather compelling document that is sadly as descriptive of today’s political environment as it was in 1776.

“When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”

That sentence describes the feelings I had when I decided to “dissolve the political bands” of our Nation’s political Parties to run as an independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States. From my perspective, it had become “necessary,” and in that regard, you are entitled to know “the causes which impel (me) to the separation.”

Succinctly: our country finds itself within the clenches of an oligarchy in which the major Parties represent the political bloodlines of the ruling class. Circumstances demand that I give America a choice to recapture its independence by providing it with a Presidential candidate who is free to do what is in the best interests of the People rather than a particular Party, who is willing to serve our Nation full-time without obligation to fundraise or campaign at the behest of others, and who owes no one for his rite of passage to that Office.

Am I under any delusion that the billions of dollars of obstacles that the Parties have successfully placed in the way of any legitimate competition won’t be an almost insurmountable challenge? No. However, I rather doubt that those who signed the Declaration of Independence were ignorant of the odds against their success in breaking away from the suppression of Great Britain (the most powerful nation on Earth at the time).

That being said, it is reasonable to ask what the impetus is for voluntarily taking on such an incredible challenge. It can be found at the beginning of the next paragraph of the Declaration itself:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

It is my belief that all men are indeed “created equal;” not that they are identical or shall be entitled to rewards that do not correspond to their unique talents and efforts, but that they should be given an equal opportunity to pursue their “Happiness” as they choose to define it. That is the essence of the unalienable rights of “Liberty” and the “pursuit of Happiness” to which we are guaranteed.

Allow me to make two additional observations in this regard.

First: there is no asterisk after the phrase “all men are created equal.” It doesn’t say, “except for…” a particular race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, etc. It says “all.”

Second: the only unalienable right that is not absolute is “Happiness.” It is qualified by the word “pursuit.” The Declaration does not guarantee “Happiness.” It merely guarantees the “pursuit of Happiness.”

This is an important distinction because Party politicians, who pander for votes by offering programs that promise “Happiness,” not only ignore this distinction but actually conspire against it. To suggest that the Government has a responsibility to guarantee “Happiness” is to betray your unalienable right to “Liberty” as well.

You see, if the Government has the responsibility to guarantee “Happiness,” it must also inherently have the right to define it. Once the Government begins to define “Happiness” for you, it will begin to erode your “Liberty” to define it for yourself.

Think about that.

If the Government pays for your education, it can define where you can go to school and what you can learn. If it pays for your housing, it can prescribe what type and size of home you can have and where it is located. If it pays for your healthcare, it can determine what treatment you can receive, from whom you can receive it, and if you can receive it at all.

Does that constitute “Liberty” in your mind?

Now, let’s examine your “Happiness” as well. As the Government’s role in your “Life” expands, will you be able to exercise the choices that will make you happy as you choose to define it, or will you have forfeited an ever-increasing share of your independence?

If you haven’t quite grasped the answer to that question, consider the next sentence of the Declaration, which states, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The only reason that our Government exists is to secure our “unalienable Rights.” It doesn’t have the authority to grant “Rights” to us. It only has the authority to “secure” them. Beyond that, its “power” is derived only through our consent. If we say, “No,” the answer is “No.”

These are the fundamental values upon which this great experiment called the United States was founded. Where are they within the context of today’s political environment?

Do we still “hold these truths to be self-evident,” or have we allowed the political Parties to cast doubt upon their veracity?

Do our politicians’ actions reflect the belief “that all men are created equal,” or do they promise programs that suggest that certain classes or categories of individuals generically require special assistance or consideration to compete in a free society? Many of these programs are just a politically correct way of deepening the societal misconceptions that have been oppressing these same classes and categories of people for centuries.

Why not actually treat people as equals for a change? Perhaps it would break the cycle of dependence, and these individuals would begin to assert their “Liberty” in a “pursuit of Happiness” that would allow them to fulfill their potential rather than remain reliant upon the Government for assistance.

The political argument against testing that element of the Declaration is that the Parties would risk surrendering the control they exert over the purported benefactors of their largess. While the 13th Amendment may have ended overt slavery in our society, the Parties have assiduously preserved the role of master. They simply administer it in a more subtle and insidious manner.

We have come to a time when Party politicians will promise you anything. They will then emote phrases like “Vote for me…my opponent doesn’t care about you like I do…I feel your pain” in an emotional plea that doesn’t even constitute good theater. They are driven by a theory that can best be described as the Declaration of Dependence; a belief that if they can convince you that you need to depend on them, they will be able to attract your money and control your vote.

Unfortunately, they have been right in the past. They have bought votes with false promises betting on the hope that people will forget over time: hope; change; transparency; bigger Government; smaller Government; invasion; withdrawal; they offer you whatever you might want to believe. They have conditioned you to become dependent upon them by pretending they know what’s best for you; just as King George did back in the 1770s. They are the Monarchs of the modern era.

When they are threatened by a legitimate non-Party candidate, they create fear and prey upon it. They tell you that an independent candidate can’t win. Then, they tell you that an independent candidate will only pull votes from your Party; that the other Party’s candidate is so horrible that you can’t afford to “waste” your vote on an independent candidate who may have better solutions; that the opposing Party is so repugnant you have to vote for the “lesser of two evils” … and you do.

You truly waste your vote because you don’t exercise the “Liberty” you enjoy to vote for the candidate with the best leadership skills and solutions; the candidate who would provide the greatest probability of success for the country. You default to “the lesser of two evils” and you essentially surrender your vote to the Party. You vote as you’re told to vote.

As a result, nothing changes.

How can you summon the courage to express your outrage; to do what you fundamentally know is in your best interest and the best interest of our Nation? You need look no further than the Declaration of Independence. It guides us as follows:

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

This is not to endorse any form of political coup, but rather to reflect upon our “Right…to alter” our form of Government, which can be done gracefully at the ballot box. We can indeed “institute a new Government” by changing our representation. We only need to determine which leaders are truly capable of “laying its foundation on such principles…as…seem most likely to effect (our) Safety and Happiness.”

The Declaration warns us that “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

This suggests that we should not randomly embrace change just for the sake of change. Instead, it reminds us that we should expect to experience a bit of suffering.

This clearly reflects where we are today. Unfortunately, it has become increasingly difficult to disregard the suffering we have endured and to ignore the promise of more in the future.

Then, the Declaration continues: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Are we at this tipping point? No. However, we are drawing dangerously close to it.

As the Government drifts further away from “securing” our “Rights” and more toward a regulatory environment that restricts them, and as the “abuses and usurpations … evinces a design to reduce them,” it becomes our “right,” and in fact, our “duty” to do something about it.

The good news is that we can work within the bounds of our democratic Republic to improve it rather than having to “throw off such Government” as our Founding Fathers had to do.

They gave us a great gift: the most remarkable and successful form of Government the world has ever known.

The United States continues to attract more legal immigrants than the rest of the countries in the world combined, and it does so for a reason. We provide the opportunity for individuals to determine their own destinies. We operate an economic system that still rewards ingenuity and effort despite the corrupting element of greed that has increasingly disrupted its efficiency. Most importantly, we have the values and direction of the Declaration of Independence to remind us of who we are and why we are who we are.

That is why I am seeking to serve in the capacity of President of the United States. We still have greatness within our grasp. It is not too late to return to our core principles, to establish a culture whose actions truly reflect the belief that “all men are created equal,” to refocus on individual “Liberty,” and to allow individuals to decide for themselves what course their “pursuit of Happiness” should take.

I am not running for the Office of President of the United States because of ego. I am simply eager to help fix our problems rather than fix the blame. I am ready to work full-time for the People and to begin to rebuild consensus among those who are more inclined to favor their Party’s platform. The only caveat I apply to achieving consensus is that it must be in alignment with the values expressed in the Declaration of Independence and consistent with the Constitution that I will be taking an oath to “preserve, protect, and defend.”

So, on this Fourth of July, I have to admit my “dependence.” I am dependent upon having someone in the media demonstrate a respect for the responsibility that is inherently intertwined with Freedom of the Press by beginning to report my candidacy with a modicum of the exposure they afford the Party candidates. Additionally, I am dependent upon your willingness to exercise your independence when it comes to deciding whom you wish to honor with your vote to lead our great Nation. If you have any doubts, ask yourself a simple question: Would you have had the courage to sign the Declaration of Independence? I believe you already have my answer. Happy Independence Day!

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

The Health Care Mandate: Constitutional but still broken

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., June 28, 2012 – When Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court concerning The Affordable Healthcare Act today, it represented an interesting study of the current state of the three Branches of our Government in an indirect manner. The Executive Branch strongly sought healthcare reform; the Legislative Branch acted to advance that cause; and the Judicial Branch ruled on the constitutionality of the legislation that was passed. Now, let’s dissect what transpired starting with the Supreme Court’s decision.

We should all be encouraged by the Supreme Court’s ruling today. The Court clearly rejected the Federal Government’s main argument in favor of the individual mandate provision of The Affordable Healthcare Act that would have extended the reach of the Commerce Clause well beyond any plausible interpretation of the Constitution.

The Court also rejected the Government’s argument that the individual mandate provision was protected under the Necessary and Proper Clause.

However, the Court upheld the individual mandate provision on the basis that it was constitutional as an exercise of the Legislative Branch’s power to tax, and that such tax need not be apportioned uniformly among the States.

Historically, Chief Justice Roberts has exercised extreme judicial restraint. In his opinion today, he demonstrated that same characteristic. The Court was able to find a way to uphold legislation that was passed by duly elected officials predominantly because of that discipline.

It is interesting to note that the Chief Justice, an appointee of President George W. Bush, has been criticized in the past for this approach by those who are most pleased by the Court’s decision today, and he will undoubtedly be vilified by those who normally support him. That is the nature of serving as a Supreme Court Justice.

Unfortunately, 5-4 Supreme Court decisions often emphasize an unfortunate political division that should not exist within the Court. While the Chief Justice’s vote may have surprised some, the votes of the other Justices did not.

However, there is hope. A 7-2 vote on the Medicaid provision of The Affordable Healthcare Act (with only Justices Bader Ginsburg and Sotomayor refusing to break ranks) suggests that the Justices occasionally can separate themselves from the political underpinnings that contributed to their nominations. Let us hope that this becomes a trend going forward.

Was the decision correct? With regard to deferring to the Legislative Branch whenever possible: Yes. However, in that regard, the Supreme Court has historically looked into “legislative intent” (i.e., looking into the record of what the Legislative Branch intended the law to represent). In that regard, the ruling is more difficult to justify.

The legislative record is quite clear. Then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid (and other Party spokespersons) adamantly asserted that the individual mandate imposed a fine rather than a tax on those who did not comply, and we were told to ignore the fact that the IRS would be the enforcement agency. The vast majority of other Democrat Members of Congress followed the Party line and reiterated this position in an exhausting number of interviews.

From the Executive Branch: the Director of the White House’s Office of Budget Management, Jeff Zients, testified before the House Budget Committee that the individual mandate fine in The Affordable Healthcare Act is not a tax, and more recently, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius (a defendant in the case) testified before Congress that she thought the fine “operates in the same way a tax would operate but it’s not per se a tax.”

Of course, these expressed positions were politically motivated in order to conform to the President’s critical campaign promise not to raise taxes on people earning under $250,000 a year. For example, on September 12, 2008, the President definitively stated, “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes” (emphasis added).

More specifically, in what is likely to become a famous interview with George Stephanopolous (on ABC News), President Obama repeatedly rejected the notion that the fine associated with the individual mandate was actually a tax. While the President is often positioned as a Constitutional scholar, it would seem the Supreme Court clearly disagreed with his interpretation this time.

Bottom line: today’s opinion supports the premise that the Supreme Court recognizes its responsibility, and at least some of its Justices are occasionally able to divorce themselves from their personal political persuasions. We can only hope that those in the Legislative and Executive Branches of our Government can learn to do what is in the best interests of the People rather than their Parties as well.

Does The Affordable Healthcare Act contain provisions that are in the best interests of the People? Yes! For example:

The portability of insurance is an important consideration.
The elimination of pre-existing conditions is an important consideration.
The elimination of the lifetime limitation is an important consideration.
The non-cancellation of insurance because of illness is an important consideration.
The elimination of indiscriminate increases in insurance premiums is an important consideration.
The extension of coverage under parental policies for those under 26 years of age is an important consideration.
The elimination of the prescription drug “donut hole” for seniors is an important consideration.
The elimination of co-payments for preventive care is an important consideration.
The ability to provide access to affordable healthcare is an important consideration.

These are all worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, The Affordable Healthcare Act was structured to address political issues more effectively than it was to address these stated concerns. In truth, the Act, as drafted, is anything but “affordable.”

The Affordable Healthcare Act does not offer a workable solution. One does not lower the cost of healthcare by creating 159 new Federal agencies. One does not ignore tort reform (a major driver of the cost of healthcare in our current system). One does not cut Medicare by $500 billion just to achieve a desirable CBO score. One does not ignore an opportunity presented by the private sector to aggressively address medical fraud (more specifically, in the Fall of 2010, then-IBM CEO, Sam Palmisano, met with President Obama and offered IBM’s software and consulting assistance to identify $900 billion in medical fraud within the federal budget without charge; an offer that has been disregarded to date).

Rather than entrusting the process to a closed-door meeting among one political Party’s politicians (as occurred with The Affordable Healthcare Act – something the President also promised would not happen), rather than having to “pass the legislation to know what’s in it” as then-Speaker Pelosi infamously explained, rather than producing amendments to a bill of this importance in the eleventh hour without providing adequate time for review, and rather than ultimately signing the bill into law with hundreds of millions of dollars of political “pork” included to secure votes … why not pursue a more rational course?

As I mentioned in the healthcare section of my Presidential website, we would be better served to create a committee comprised of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers, pharmacists, insurance professionals, healthcare administrators, drug and medical research professionals, medical malpractice attorneys, and individuals with extensive patient experience to identify opportunities to improve the quality of care, increase the operating efficiencies, and reduce the cost of providing healthcare to American citizens.

The committee would be tasked with identifying and prioritizing the objectives of comprehensive healthcare reform (i.e., such as the “important considerations” previously cited). The committee’s recommendations would then be shared with the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, and those Congressional Committees would be encouraged to consider each recommendation separately with an up-or-down vote to build bipartisan legislation. No pork; no pandering to special interests; simply legislation that remains true to resolving the challenge it was intended to address.

America clearly needs healthcare reform. It needs to be rationally addressed, and it needs to be framed in a manner that is singularly focused on the best interests of the People. In the interim, expect both Parties to try to exploit today’s Supreme Court decision to rally their bases and solicit donations to their campaigns.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

How Americans Elect became Americans’ Regret

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., June 18, 2012 – According to its website, “The Goal of Americans Elect (was) to nominate a presidential ticket that answers directly to voters – not the political system.” What many had hoped would be a glorious attempt to allow the People to finally have a say in presidential politics was brought to an end by its Board last month. This voluntary surrender wasn’t brought about by the vast number of errors in execution that plagued the effort from its inception, but rather by the organization’s refusal to address its flaws and its overbearing need to “win” in the traditional sense.

The concept was simple. As Americans Elect’s website originally proclaimed: “American voters are tired of politics as usual. They want leaders that will put their country before their party, and American interests before special interests. Leaders to work together to develop fresh solutions to the serious challenges facing our country. We believe a secure, online nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket.”

Had the organization remained committed to its Goal (and the basis of that Goal), it might have had a chance to succeed. Instead, it crumbled under the weight of “politics as usual.”

The die was cast early in the process. Rather than providing a level playing field, Americans Elect created a five-to-one advantage for “politics as usual.” It required non-traditional candidates to amass 5,000 “delegates” in 10 different States while traditional candidates (i.e., former federally elected officials) only needed to attract 1,000 “delegates” in 10 different States. While there were other salient differences, the vast disparity in delegate requirements rendered them moot.

For over four months, Americans Elect featured major Party candidates’ pictures quite prominently on its “candidates” page ostensibly to create an illusion of legitimacy. Additionally, hundreds of other traditional politicians’ names and pictures were also featured on the site. However, during this same period, many non-traditional candidates, who were actually registered with the FEC (including me), had to wait until the last few days of February (and, in some cases, into March) to be listed with a picture and fully edited profile.

In response to a personal inquiry, I received the following reply on December 29, 2011:

“We’ve just started with the candidate’s page, and the data is currently supplied by On The Issues. We’ll be including more people in the coming weeks, and soon, you’ll also be able to draft anyone you think should be a candidate, including yourself! We appreciate your patience as we continue to build the website. Please stay tuned and keep checking back at www.AmericansElect.org. Sincerely, The Americans Elect Team”

Given that members of Americans Elect’s Board had been appearing on network news shows throughout November and December and surely were aware that the 2012 Election Day was set in stone, it seemed odd that its website was not going to be fully operational for some.

By mid-January, my name was finally listed as a “declared” candidate although no picture, candidate profile, etc. were available despite my status as a registered candidate with the FEC. It also took an additional two months before my name was spelled correctly despite repeated requests to make the correction. Apparently, if you’re a presidential candidate of Irish ancestry, the apostrophe in your name (and any associated capitalization nuance) can wreak havoc with your chances.

On the positive side, Americans Elect made a sincere effort to vet delegates before allowing them to vote. If only our Department of Justice would show the same level of respect for protecting the sanctity of that right.

However, the organization’s “verification” process was saddled with technical problems. As a presidential candidate, it took me several months to become verified, and I was required to do something outside of Americans Elect’s normal process to accomplish this.

This problem persisted throughout Americans Elect’s brief existence. My campaign committee was receiving about 10 calls or emails a week that complained about the inability to become verified as a delegate to cast a vote on my behalf. Correspondingly, people were afraid to refer their friends to the system until the issue had been resolved. As a result, the ability to build any significant momentum was stymied.

In response to multiple inquiries about this, Americans Elect responded on March 30 as follows:

“Apologies for the delay in addressing your concerns. While our normal delegate verification process has an approximately 99% success rate, there are still unfortunately individuals that are having trouble verifying their identity. To address this problem, we have created a manual system of verification that we anticipate will be available starting Monday, 2 April 2012. This system will ensure that those who have been unable to verify through our verification process, yet are indeed who they claim to be, will have full privileges on the Americans Elect website.”

If the success rate of “approximately 99%” was remotely accurate, I should have had approximately 11,000 votes by March 30 instead of the 500 or so that were tallied (which placed me fifth among declared candidates).

Did I mention that the “manual verification” process ultimately was delayed and also failed to fix the problem?

The reason this is relevant is that the verification system failure essentially precluded any candidate’s ability to achieve the arbitrary thresholds that had been established by Americans Elect (including traditional candidates who already enjoyed a 5:1 advantage relative to the delegate requirement).

POLITICS AS USUAL

Conceptually, Americans Elect was a critically important initiative because the Parties have been allowed to construct significant economic barriers to preclude the entry of any legitimate competition. The cost to gain ballot access is more than $1 million per State.

Americans Elect offered a “99%” guarantee that it would deliver ballot access to whatever candidate emerged from its convention. Its decision to terminate its grand in late May essentially ceded control to the Parties.

Let it be said that Americans Elect had every right to exercise its decision to discontinue its project. While it is difficult to perceive why the organization would abandon what it professed to be a ballot line that already exceeded the 270 electoral votes that are necessary to elect a President, Americans Elect’s Board certainly retained that right.

Not a single candidate approached the mythical number of delegates that the Board demanded; not even among the traditional candidates, who were given such an enormous advantage (e.g., Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman, Michael Bloomberg, David Walker, et al.). Rather than address the reality that its verification system didn’t work and that the arbitrary delegate requirements were unrealistic, it evidently was easier to abort the effort.

It was then that “politics as usual” entered into the mix.

The Board of Americans Elect proclaimed victory by declaring that the organization’s “operational goals were all achieved.” Really?

Again, according to its website, “The Goal of Americans Elect is to nominate a presidential ticket that answers directly to voters – not the political system.” Was that goal achieved?

Continuing from its website: “American voters are tired of politics as usual. They want leaders that will put their country before their party, and American interests before special interests. Leaders to work together to develop fresh solutions to the serious challenges facing our country. We believe a secure, online nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket.”

Perhaps that was just rhetoric. In the private sector, one would be embarrassed to seriously profess that the organization’s “operational goals were all achieved,” but then, this is politics, and in politics, the standard course of action is to find someone else to blame.

In an interview with radio talk show host, Michael Smerconish, former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman (a Board member of Americans Elect) reiterated the party line and indicated her personal disappointment that Americans Elect had not been able to identify a candidate (even though hundreds were listed on the site and had attracted support).

As Mr. Smerconish summarized in a subsequent article he published in The Philadelphia Inquirer (“Third party movement fizzles”), it was all about winning. He said, “With a B-list of wannabes, Americans Elect could only have played a spoiler role and those behind the effort must not have wanted such a legacy. Whitman told me as much.”

According to Mr. Smerconish’s assessment, “… not even the prospect of access to 50 state ballots was enough to attract an A-list candidate. Apparently, that’s because of some of those who could have filled the bill were good for lip service only.”

“I understood and always knew it was going to be a tough row to hoe to get people to do that. I appreciated that coming from the political world as I do,” said Whitman. “But I am disappointed, particularly because … (of) the number of people who have said, … ‘This is a great idea, this is what we ought to be doing, I am fully supportive,’ and then push comes to shove (and) it’s, ‘Uh, you know, I can’t really come out and say I believe that.’ And that is disappointing.”

Let the record show that in December of 2011, former Gov. Whitman had publicly called upon Jon Huntsman to run as an independent. In its final months, there also appeared to be an undercurrent of activity at Americans Elect to encourage David Walker (former U.S. Comptroller General and an advisor to Americans Elect’s Board) to do the same.

In the private sector, such “encouragement” by a Board that held unilateral control over the rules, etc. would almost certainly be viewed to be a conflict of interest and a potential breach of fiduciary duty, but again, this is politics; a world essentially devoid of fiduciary duty.

On the positive side, we can learn from every failure. The greatest lesson to be learned from this exercise is the compelling difference that exists between an A-List candidate in the public sector and an A-List leader from the private sector.

Apparently, the qualifications for being deemed an “A-List” candidate include a political pedigree (successful or otherwise), national name recognition, and an inability to stand for that in which you believe (i.e., ‘Uh, you know, I can’t really come out and say I believe that’).

Allow me to distinguish the difference between an “A-List” candidate and an “A-List” leader.

An “A-List” leader may not have a political pedigree. As a result, he or she may not “owe” anyone for anything and may not have to provide political access or favors in return for such “debts.”

An “A-List” leader may not have national name recognition which, if history is any indication, can be acquired as easily as performing one well-read speech from a TelePrompTer at a National Convention.

Instead, an “A-List” leader almost certainly has actual operating experience in the real world. He or she may have run organizations of significant scale in widely diverse industries.

An “A-List” leader undoubtedly has experienced intense competitive pressure; usually without adequate resources with which to respond in a traditional manner.

An “A-List” leader is likely to have achieved success as the result of exceptional problem-solving skills, strategic execution, and the ability to build consensus rather than as the result of political connections and superior funding.

Most importantly, an “A-List” leader has the courage to stand up for those things in which he or she believes.

The vulnerability of our political system is that it places form over substance; it pays homage to sound bites rather than solutions; and it has become obsessed with “winning.” To quote former Gov. Whitman: “We’re not going to lower our standards …Our team has to show it can win.”

Given the perception that the Office of President of the United States is some sort of trophy to be won, it is unlikely that Americans Elect can lower its standards

As an independent “B-List” candidate and an “A-List” leader, I can categorically state that this isn’t a game. Our Nation is at risk, and we need real leadership to solve our problems. As Albert Einstein once said, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” To paraphrase him, “We cannot solve our problems with the same ‘A-List’ candidates we used when we created them.” It’s time for “A-List” leaders.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Humanitarian Relief: NGOs and the U.S. Government

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., April 22, 2012 – The United States is a generous Nation. It provides nearly $60 billion a year in foreign aid through approximately 20 different Federal agencies. The question is whether the humanitarian aid elements of this assistance can be delivered more efficiently and effectively through Non-Governmental Organizations (“NGOs”) in the private sector.

According to foreignassistance.gov, the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (“USAID”) alone have requested about $34 billion for 2013 as follows:

$10.68 billion – Peace and Security
$8.57 billion – Health
$3.90 billion – Economic Development
$3.79 billion – Humanitarian Assistance
$2.80 billion – Democracy / Human Rights / Governance
$2.24 billion – Program Support
$1.03 billion – Education and Social Services
$0.68 billion – Environment

The first category, “Peace and Security,” is a bit of a misnomer since much of this assistance is provided for the maintenance and/or upgrade of military equipment and goes to countries such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Israel, and Pakistan. If the United States were to reframe its foreign policy to respect the sovereignty of foreign nations (as was suggested in Foreign Policy: A Rational Approach for the U.S.), this category could be dramatically reduced.

If we also take Economic Development, Environment, and Program Support out of the equation, we are essentially left with elements of humanitarian aid that reflect the domain of the NGO world: Health, Humanitarian Assistance, Human Rights, and Education and Social Services.

NGOs, by definition, are not government agencies. They rely upon donations of time, money, products, and services to deliver assistance to those in need. They reflect the virtue of mankind to overlook physical borders, physical differences, and cultural dissimilarities to display compassion for perfect strangers who share our planet and have suffered misfortune through no cause of their own.

NGOs can be found at the scene of every cataclysmic natural disaster. They are always among the first responders and often are the last to leave. While there is a natural tension between NGOs and the United States military because of their necessarily conflicting priorities in some theaters, they work in close cooperation when it comes to issues of logistics concerning the delivery of food, water, and medical supplies to the most austere of environments.

The question becomes: “Can the burgeoning role of the Federal Government be ceded to NGOs for the benefit of all concerned?”

Let’s consider the role of the United States Government in providing Health, Humanitarian Assistance, Human Rights, Education, and Social Services to countries around the world.

Its economic contribution is significant. However, history is replete with stories of how those funds find their way into the pockets of the dictatorial elite as opposed to the hands of the people for whom it is intended. Our country has been complicit in the creation of more than its share of “millionaires and billionaires” in foreign countries, who gain their wealth “on the backs of the working people.” Although this trite political phrase has become popular in our country to create a natural divide among voters, it is unfortunately more accurate at the international level.

Another fundamental reality is that our Federal Government is woefully inefficient. To provide these funds to foreign countries, we have:

The cost of collecting taxes (including all the infrastructure associated with creating the ever-changing rules, monitoring compliance, and enforcing violations);
The cost of developing and administering the programs that span multiple Departments and Agencies;
The cost of delivering the products and services; and
The cost of monitoring the programs (when this is actually done).

Given the most recent publicity associated with the Government Services Administration (“GSA”), you can imagine how efficient and cost-effective the various Federal Departments and Agencies must be. As a result, only a modest percentage of the original tax dollar reaches the targeted country and an even smaller fraction of that dollar makes it into the hands of the intended benefactors.

Now, let’s compare that to the performance of NGO’s.

Almost everyone is familiar with the American Red Cross. According to its website, it invests 91 cents of every dollar in humanitarian services and programs. While it employs 35,000 people, it supplements that team with 500,000 volunteers who respond to about 70,000 disasters each year. In addition, it trains more than 9 million people each year in “first aid, water safety and other skills that help save lives.”

World Vision is a Christian humanitarian organization that provides disaster relief and works to reduce poverty throughout the world and alleviate hunger. The organization serves “close to 100 million people in nearly 100 countries around the world … regardless of religion, race, ethnicity, or gender.” It has a staff of about 40,000 who predominantly work in their home countries, and 86 cents of every dollar is directed toward programs that benefit children, families, and communities in need.

NetHope is an NGO that serves in a slightly different capacity. In its own words, it acts “as a catalyst for collaboration, bringing together the knowledge and power of 34 leading international humanitarian organizations so that the best information communication technology and practices can be used to serve people in the developing world.” It focuses on educating its members, solving common technical problems, and building strong relationships with for-profit companies in the private sector that are willing to donate products, services, and money for the benefit of mankind (something that is often ignored by the political community). This approach creates economies of scale and leverages each organization’s resources.

Using these three organizations as examples, you can immediately see that their operating efficiencies are dramatically better than running the maze of cost and complexity associated with trying to convert a tax dollar into genuine assistance. The NGOs are also singularly committed to their task and they do not have to distribute political favors to gain votes for funding. Their funding comes from the goodwill of people and businesses that care, and it comes from the discretionary funds and resources those entities have available.

Our Government has either forgotten or doesn’t believe that individuals and corporate citizens will demonstrate philanthropic intent absent Government intervention. Perhaps it is because too many of our elected officials have become jaded by the quid pro quo political environment within which they reside. I prefer to put my faith in humanity.

As our National Debt approaches $16 trillion (with no end in sight absent a serious change in direction), we need to explore every alternative when it comes to operating costs and efficiencies. I am tired of the argument that $30-$60 billion dollars is a round-off error when compared to the deficit. Everything is a round-off error when compared to the deficit because we continue to permit our Government to operate in a fiscally irresponsible way.

I like to use the transference of humanitarian responsibility from the Government to the NGO world for two reasons: (1) the math is fairly obvious, and (2) it emphasizes the positive contributions that individuals and corporations make to our global society. The first point is pragmatic (NGOs are far more cost-effective and efficient), and the second point is critical.

Our current political oligopoly has maintained and expanded its power by using the negative emotion of fear. Political sound bites are carefully crafted to separate people into groups, play to a set of fears within that group, and then suggest that only one Party “feels your pain” while the other Party is inherently evil.

The Parties routinely announce political “Wars” to breed fear (i.e., the War on Religion; the War on Women; the War on Stay-at-Home Moms; etc.). The practice is disgraceful. If we are going to endorse one of these self-serving mantras, I suggest it be a war-to-end-all-war: a War on the Fear-Mongering, Political Practice of Intentional Misrepresentation.

I think that we would be far better served to reintroduce a concept that NGOs seem to clearly understand: that there is a large body of people and corporations who are willing to lend a hand to others. If we create a greater awareness of this fact and showcase the positive side of our society, we are likely to see it “trend.”

This also demonstrates a difference between what the Office of President of the United States has become when its occupant is beholden to a Party rather than the People. If I should be blessed with the opportunity to serve our country in this capacity, I would allow the political debate to remain within the bi-cameral chambers of Congress where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs. Under my leadership, the Office of President of the United States would work in an expanded liaison capacity with the private sector.

For example: while the NGO community is vastly more efficient and effective than its public sector associates, it has room for improvement as well.

There is a hint of politicization within the NGO community that currently impacts its operating efficiency. In the area of humanitarian relief, NGOs are prone to spend as much money as possible on food, water, medical supplies, etc. If they receive $1 million for such purposes, they try to spend $1 million on such provisions. Unfortunately, while these materials and necessities are procured and delivered “in country,” a regrettable amount never reaches its intended recipients (perhaps as much as 20-40 percent). The reason is twofold: (1) many of these operating theaters are particularly severe (i.e., disaster zones that lack power, communication systems, etc. with collateral civil unrest); and (2) the logistics systems are fairly antiquated.

Little can be done to address the root cause associated with the physical environment. However, the logistics element can be readily addressed, and in that regard, it is worth noting that logistics represents the second largest expense (other than labor) in providing humanitarian relief.

The United States military has the finest logistics capabilities of any entity in the world. Those solutions should be shared with the NGO community, and the NGO community should embrace them regardless of any tension that might otherwise exist between the two groups.

If you are the civilian victim of a natural disaster or a military casualty, there are two fundamental truths: (1) you are a human being, and (2) you don’t care who provides the care you need. The primary mission is to help people in need.

Under my leadership, the Executive Branch of our Government will take the first step. It will work to bridge the gap between NGOs and the military (as well as other governmental Departments and Agencies such as FEMA, etc.) by creating a technology transfer initiative with respect to logistics.

To the degree that declassified logistic solutions can be provided to the NGO world, they will be made available. This will not require a fresh expenditure of taxpayer dollars but rather will leverage those tax dollars that have already been spent. It will simply share the technology so that the impact of those tax dollars, as well as the NGOs’ donations can be multiplied.

Then, the NGOs and Government entities will need to learn to work together and with thought leaders in the private sector. There are large corporations, such as Walmart, that have an enormous amount of experience in the world of logistics. Then, there are small, innovative technology companies, such as VerdaSee Solutions, Inc. (“VerdaSee”), that have developed state-of-the-art first response and supply chain solutions that are designed for rapid deployment in austere environments.

For example, VerdaSee has developed a hardened system that can establish a mesh communication network in minutes rather than days to allow triage to begin almost instantaneously in emergency environments; thereby dramatically reducing morbidity and mortality rates related to the incident. It also has developed “fenceless” warehouse operations that utilize RFID and GPS technologies, etc. that can be quickly established in a field to identify:

What has been received?
From whom it was shipped?
From where it came?
What may have occurred during transport?
Where it is currently located?
When and to whom it will be distributed or dispensed (thereby maximizing the utilization of such supplies, materials, and equipment)?

These solutions have also been designed to be backward and forward-compatible and completely scalable to eliminate obsolescence and maximize return on investment.

To the NGO community’s credit, it seems to have recognized the need for these types of solutions, and new entities such as Sustain Global Partnership (“Sustain”) are beginning to evolve.

Sustain is looking to create a collaborative approach that will aggregate demand among its members, address such demand through strategic sourcing, and leverage interoperable systems (such as VerdaSee’s) to drive operating efficiencies into NGO logistics. Its success will mean that each donated dollar will have a far greater intended impact in the future, which is exactly what the Government should be challenged to accomplish with respect to our tax dollars.

If we are able to combine the best ideas of the NGO community with those of Government entities and private sector companies (such as VerdaSee), we will have changed the economics of first response and humanitarian assistance. The NGO community will be able to serve more people in need, our Government will be allowed to reduce the world’s dependence on its generosity, and small companies like VerdaSee will be able to become larger companies that create jobs and expand the economy.

There isn’t any reason that this logistics model cannot be expanded into other cooperative initiatives within the public and private sectors. Similar technology transfer initiatives could be utilized with respect to declassified technologies, and cooperative initiatives could be launched to standardize design, accelerate development, and reduce costs (because of economies of scale).

In the long-term, this will yield a significantly higher return on tax dollar investment, reduce the overall cost of Government, and foster a positive relationship between the private and public sector environment. It will also similarly benefit the NGO community and any other private sector that participates. Additionally, it is based upon building a more positive, constructive relationship between the public and private sectors; something that hasn’t been seen in quite some time as the Parties prefer to use the sectors as political pawns to separate the electorate into competing camps.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution is clear. It is not the People’s responsibility to provide the capital that the Government decides it would like to spend. Rather, it is the Government’s responsibility to learn how “to provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States” as efficiently and cost-effectively as possible. As President of the United States, I will strive to bring the public and private sectors together in every area in which value can be created. In that way, we can share ideas as well as the solutions they yield. We will no longer be a slave to the practice of solving problems separately and spending twice as much time and money as is necessary. Instead, we will work in a unified manner to achieve goals that benefit our Nation and the world. “United We Stand; Divided We Fall,” will once again have meaning.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

The issue of Oil examined by The FREEDOM Process

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., April 19, 2012 – As we addressed in Energy and the Environment: An inseparable pair, the issue of oil has become a key battleground topic of the 2012 Presidential campaign. The price of this particular fossil fuel has a cascading effect on nearly every physical product that is consumed in the United States as well as many of the services that impact our lives (e.g., transportation, etc.). We need to take a rational approach to evolve a strategy that appropriately reflects the impact of oil on our Nation and provides for a transition over time to less deleterious sources of energy.

As much as the Party candidates may enjoy denigrating each other, neither camp offers a coherent and actionable energy strategy. If only the EPA would use the Clean Air Act to issue a ban on political rhetoric. That would be a significant first step.

Let’s use the price of gasoline as an example. It is already at an all-time high and rising. GOP candidates are using that as their “flavor of the month” to attack the President’s performance. Their solution: promise to lower the price per gallon to $2.50.

You might want to ask: “How?“

In a recent speech, the President admonished the Republicans:

“You can bet that since it’s an election year, they’re already dusting off their 3-point plan for $2 gas. And I’ll save you the suspense. Step one is to drill and step two is to drill. And then step three is to keep drilling. (Laughter.) We heard the same line in 2007 when I was running for President. We hear the same thing every year. We’ve heard the same thing for 30 years.

“Well, the American people aren’t stupid. They know that’s not a plan, especially since we’re already drilling. That’s a bumper sticker. It’s not a strategy to solve our energy challenge. (Applause.) That’s a strategy to get politicians through an election.”

You might want to ask: “What was the President’s solution?“

The President listed a wide variety of possibilities and then said, “All of the above.”

You might want to say, “Nice bumper sticker, Mr. President!”

Actually, President Obama isn’t wrong. We do need a comprehensive energy strategy, and it needs to be in alignment with our environmental policy. The key is that it has to be practically based rather than theoretically attractive. We only need to examine the rhetoric to identify where the political sound bites break down.

For years, we have been told that drilling will not have a discernible impact on production for five to ten years. This is a relatively accurate statement as it relates to the supply side of the oil equation. Unfortunately, it has been used as an excuse to “delay” decisions. The result is that our dependence on foreign oil hasn’t been significantly reduced since the Department of Energy (“DOE”) was established to address that very issue.

Interestingly enough, the President is walking a political tightrope by simultaneously suggesting that investment in oil production is “bad” (or at least that “Big Oil” companies that do not support his campaign are), while he takes credit for the increase in drilling that has taken place during his Administration. The reality is that drilling has increased during his Administration, but the permits clearly were issued prior to his taking office. Additionally, most of the drilling has occurred on privately owned property rather than federally controlled lands.

Correspondingly, while nearly everyone would support a transition to renewable energy sources, it simply isn’t realistic from an engineering perspective at this point in time.

The DOE has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private sector companies that are trying to bring renewable energy solutions to market. Unfortunately, many of these companies have failed, and far too many of them appear to have been selected on the basis of past political favors.

During this same period, the EPA has tried to affect the President’s cap-and-trade initiative that failed to pass the Legislative Branch of our government through the backdoor of its regulation. Putting the unconstitutionality of that approach aside, it has generated egregious results, and when Congress has taken action, it has often only added to the absurdity.

For example: at the end of 2011, “Big Oil” was assessed about $6.8 billion in fines for having ignored an edict to blend certain types of biofuels (made from woodchips and certain inedible plants) into their gasoline and diesel to lower greenhouse emissions. On the surface, this seems reasonable. Regrettably, this biofuel does not exist outside of a handful of experimental laboratories. It is not available in production quantities at this time. That being said, the “quota” will be increased next year from 6.6 million gallons of the non-existent fuel to 8.65 million gallons. So, the fines will increase while the impossibility of complying remains the same.

Now, guess who ultimately pays the fine?

So, what is a rational approach to our current energy and environmental concerns?

Recognize the temporal reality that oil must play a near-term role as we migrate to more environmentally friendly solutions that have not yet evolved to a practical or competitive stage of deployment.
Approve permits for domestic drilling and transport (i.e., the Keystone Pipeline) that will create jobs, comply with all state-of-the-art environmental mitigation capabilities, and reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil over time.
Do not impose regulations that require the introduction of biofuels, etc. that are not commercially available at this time (the fines of which only add to the cost of fuel without producing any beneficial environmental impact); instead, create rewards for accelerated development and commercial release.
Rather than trying to pick renewable energy “winners and losers” in the private sector (which tend to be politically skewed as opposed to practically determined): invest in educational grants that foster applied research and development in related areas; harvest any resultant patents on behalf of the taxpayers of the United States; provide access to such patents without royalty for companies that are based in the United States and employee U.S. citizens; provide access to such patents with a mid-tier royalty for U.S.-based companies to the degree they deploy any related product overseas; and potentially provide access to such patents with a high-tier royalty for foreign companies.

The results would include:

Job creation
Economic expansion
The elimination of unnecessary costs to oil-based fuels that otherwise are transferred to the consumer
A minimization of cost impact to all transported products and transportation-related fuel consumption
A benefit to the science and engineering colleges of our university programs (spurring a possible shift in long-term job opportunities and global competitiveness)
And a return on investment to the American taxpayer … just to name a few.

So, let’s test this approach within the context of The FREEDOM Process.

Foreign Policy: Our dependence upon foreign oil significantly impacts our foreign policy, particularly with respect to the Middle East. The unspoken premises of our past military actions within Iraq were as much predicated upon protecting access to (and the stability of) oil supplies as they were matters of National defense and/or humanitarian aid. The sooner we can reduce our Nation’s dependence upon foreign oil, the sooner we can disengage from intervening in the sovereign affairs of other nations. In turn, this will reduce the target for terrorism that our oil dependence has created for us.

Resource Policy: As has already been discussed in this article as well as in Energy and the Environment: An inseparable pair, our Nation requires a comprehensive energy and environmental policy that rationally reflects the temporal restrictions of technology. While Party candidates have elected to become deeply entrenched in extreme positions relative to oil, the reality is that we have little choice but to include it in our near-term set of solutions.

Correspondingly, we must aggressively identify opportunities to reduce our long-term dependence upon oil (including that which is domestically produced). Because of our current economic reality, we can ill afford to create a false economy with respect to oil given its impact on the cost of so many other products and services. Any attempt to manipulate the price of oil to create premature competitive parity with respect to renewable alternatives does more harm than good.

That being said, regulatory control over the speculative manipulation of oil pricing is an appropriate concern of the Federal Government. While commodity speculation within the context of certain industries (e.g., trucking, transportation, etc.) reflects an appropriate hedge against projected swings in pricing, non-industry related speculation by organizations that are characterized by the new catchphrase “too big to fail” should appropriately fall within the purview of securities law. Not only would the Commerce Clause provide a basis for such control, but even the fundamental language of Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (i.e., “the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States”) would seem applicable.

Economic Policy: The price of oil is driven by a multiplicity of factors, including but not limited to locating, extracting, refining, containing, shipping, storing, and distributing the oil. Commodity speculation, taxation, and Federal regulation add to the cost as well. Then, add consumption on the demand side of the equation.

With the possible exception of water, no other commodity has as compelling an impact on our society. Oil products are used to power the vehicles that transport people and virtually every tangible product known to mankind; they are used in plastics and composites; they are used to warm some of our homes; and, to a lesser degree, they even contribute to our electrical grid (about 1% of our electrical power is derived from oil).

As a result, any price fluctuation in oil has a cascading impact on our economy. Yet, the President is right: Party candidates treat it like it’s a political bumper sticker (himself included). Perhaps as the President said, “the American people aren’t stupid,” but the jury is still out on the Party candidates.

A comprehensive energy policy, with oil at its forefront in the near term, would go a long way toward stabilizing and expanding our economy. Should we invest in renewable energy solutions simultaneously? Absolutely! However, many of them are not competitively viable presently and others will require years to effectively evolve the technology.

In the interim, we should allow domestic oil production (along with an intelligent utilization of other established fossil fuels such as natural gas) to accelerate our transition from foreign oil dependence. Concomitantly, we should encourage existing energy companies and emerging competitors to invest in the next generation of renewable energy technologies; not through punitive fines, but rather through rewards (e.g., tax credits, etc.) and the natural benefits of being a “first mover” in a capitalistic environment.

Since the United States is the largest consumer of oil in the world (by orders of magnitude), any significant shift in its demand for foreign oil (or even the implication that there may be a shift) can serve to reduce, or at least stabilize the price of foreign oil. This, in turn, can have a favorable valuation impact on the US dollar (a discussion of which is beyond the scope of this particular article).

Education Policy: The Engineering and Science departments of universities are comparatively expensive to operate based on their infrastructure requirements. By redirecting Federal educational funds to such programs, we can accomplish the following:

Potentially lower the cost of tuition, which would make such programs more attractive;

Grow the number of graduates with the skills that will be required to maintain our Nation’s technological superiority in the global economy;

Accelerate the research and development of renewable energy solutions, as well as risk mitigation technologies with respect to fossil fuels; and,

Create a return-on-investment opportunity for the taxpayer in the form of a national patent estate in renewable energy technologies that could stimulate job growth and economic expansion.

This brief list is not meant to be exhaustive of the benefits, but rather illustrative of the opportunities that exist within the intelligent deployment of taxpayer funds within the context of our university system.

Defense Policy: By reducing our Nation’s dependence upon foreign oil, we would have the opportunity to significantly reduce an element of our Defense spending. Our military actions in Iraq alone cost over $1 trillion in approximately a decade. Of course, this only reflects the dollar cost versus the human cost.

Correspondingly, a majority of the United States’ foreign aid is directed toward four countries; three of which are in the Middle East (predominantly because of our need for political allies to help protect our oil interests). The preponderance of that money is earmarked for weapons purchases and military equipment upgrades, most of which are acquired from other countries. With the exception of Israel, these countries also vote against the United States approximately 75% of the time with regard to significant U.N. resolutions.

In effect, we are perpetuating the volatile environment of the Middle East because of our dependence upon foreign oil.

Operations Policy: By refocusing and appropriately constraining certain Federal regulatory agencies, we can reduce the costs associated with promulgating ineffective rules (and in some cases, potentially unconstitutional ones). We can also reduce the infrastructure that is necessary to monitor such rules and to enforce them.

This will reduce the private sector cost associated with compliance that is otherwise passed on to the consumer. From a business viewpoint, the related savings can be redeployed to create jobs, invest in renewable energy R&D, etc.

From a behavioral perspective, we would be shifting an element of the public/private sector paradigm from a punitive environment to one based upon reward, and a similar argument can be made with respect to our funding of education.

Medical Policy: The faster we transition away from foreign oil dependence, the faster we can reduce our military operations in foreign countries. This will allow us to begin to move our troops out of harm’s way.

It will also allow us to reevaluate Federal spending that would otherwise be allocated toward Defense and consider its redeployment toward programs that impact the quality of life of our citizens (i.e., Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, etc.). Any reduction in Federal agency costs can be similarly evaluated.

Additionally, a more intelligently orchestrated (and less politically combative) solution to our comprehensive energy needs will have a favorable impact on our environment. As a result, our long-term health will be rewarded.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Energy and the Environment: An inseparable pair

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., April 11, 2012 – As gasoline prices climb at the pump and the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) continues to expand is regulatory power, energy, and the environment have become two of the key battleground topics of the 2012 Presidential election. Unfortunately, they shouldn’t even be separate issues.

President Obama and his Republican challengers appear to be too involved in partisan politics to recognize that our energy and environmental challenges are inextricably intertwined. Instead, both factions favor a “divide and conquer” strategy that panders to the more extreme elements of their Parties in a ritual that’s known as “solidifying their base” (translation: locking in massive campaign contributions and votes).

This tradition is yet another example of how the best interests of the Parties take precedence over the best interests of the People. If it wasn’t so damaging to our country, it might even be entertaining. Consider the irony:

The President and his fellow Democrats have proclaimed themselves to be champions of the environment, but it was President Nixon (R) who started the EPA in 1970.
Conversely, the Republican candidates have positioned themselves as the bastions of oil independence, even though it was President Carter (D) who launched the Department of Energy (“DOE”) in 1977 with the express mission to eliminate our Nation’s dependence upon foreign oil.

Of course, things have changed over the years.

In its inception, the Republican-inspired EPA was a small agency focused on protecting our health and preserving our natural resources. It has now grown to over 17,000 employees and has become a political tool of the Executive Branch.

Since the President’s “cap and trade” initiative failed to gain the support of the Legislative Branch of our Government, his Administration has attempted to use EPA regulations to circumvent Article I of the Constitution. In that regard, the President’s recent upbraiding of the Supreme Court should come as no surprise since there is no reason to believe that the Administration views Article III any differently than it does Article I.

Correspondingly, the Democrat-inspired DOE has grown to over 16,000 full-time employees and approximately 100,000 contractors with an annual operating budget in excess of $25 billion. Is that an indication of unwarranted Government expansion or does it just reflect the cost of delivering its services? The answer can be gleaned by examining the progress the DOE has made over the last 35 years toward achieving its original objective: eliminating our Nation’s dependence upon foreign oil.

The EPA and the DOE are just two examples of why we need fresh new independent leadership in Washington, D.C.

President Obama and the Republican candidates also differ on several fundamental issues. Not surprisingly, these differences are in alignment with their respective core constituencies.

The President believes in Global Warming, while the Republican candidates do not. The President asserts that it is “well-settled science” according to his experts; while the Republican candidates cite their experts’ claims that the data is biased and has been intentionally misrepresented. Then, the two camps argue their points by calling each other names (e.g., “Flat-Earthers,” “liar,” etc.). There must be a better approach.

A RATIONAL RESOURCE POLICY

As stewards of our Nation, we need to establish a Resource policy whose environmental foundation focuses on protecting and preserving our natural resources to the greatest degree possible for “ourselves and our Posterity.” This requires a rational reflection that distinguishes between that which can be controlled and that which cannot. It also requires a balance between risk and reward. For instance: saving the planet from a proven source of destruction would justify considerable risk; knowingly damaging elements of our society based on theoretical beliefs would not justify the taking of such actions.

Let’s use Global Warming as an example.

“Science” is mankind’s attempt to describe and explain natural phenomena through observation and experimentation. Its purpose is to provide useful models of reality that allow us to predict outcomes within relative degrees of probability.

At the theoretical level, science often represents little more than a highly educated guess. It can only disprove a null hypothesis by observation over time.

With respect to Global Warming, there are conflicting theories with credible evidence to support both. The root cause of the phenomenon remains unproven. Therefore, objectively, Global Warming is far from being a “well-settled science.”

Before Conservative naysayers begin to celebrate, they need to consider the adverse consequences of their theory if it is in error. Even business-oriented Republicans recognize that the recurrence of an Ice Age would significantly damage the tourist industry and be bad for GDP.

Conversely, for those Liberals who may be laughing at the last comment, you cannot regulate Global Warming on a provincial basis. For example, tightly regulating greenhouse gases in the United States may theoretically slow Global Warming, but the impact is likely to be so infinitesimal (if even measurable) that it would fall within the margin of error. The reality is that EPA regulations do not impact China, India, etc.; countries whose unbridled industrial growth is likely to offset any impact that EPA regulations might provide.

It also is imperative that we distinguish “controllable” from “non-controllable” with respect to issues such as Global Warming. To the degree that we can “control” outcomes, we should err on the side of caution and take well-reasoned steps to protect and preserve our environment. To the degree that we cannot control the outcome, we should not impose meaningless regulations that negatively impact other relevant policies (as can be explored through the use of The FREEDOM Process).

From a “control” perspective, most environmental regulations should be geographically and temporally constrained. Water and air regulations, specific to a defined geographic area (before natural dissipation renders such regulations irrelevant), have merit; pretending such regulations have sovereign impact beyond our borders does not.

Another rule we should follow is to preclude the use of environmental regulations as tools of political fiat. Let’s allow the Constitution to remain the “law of the land.”

For example: by proclaiming carbon dioxide to be a greenhouse gas that must be regulated, the EPA is able to indirectly incorporate “cap and trade” restrictions that the United States Congress failed to endorse. This flies in the face of President Obama’s recent comments that suggested the Supreme Court would be participating in judicial activism if it were to take the “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Surely, a Cabinet-level agency cannot be exempt from a similar concern.

We also should apply common sense to temper our regulatory zeal. Let’s use carbon dioxide once again as an example.

The EPA is working diligently to control the expulsion of this troublesome greenhouse gas. However, there is something even more troublesome about carbon dioxide: it is necessary for life on this planet. It is the byproduct of breathing. Oxygen goes in; carbon dioxide comes out. If we took a poll, most of us would have a favorable opinion of breathing.

Correspondingly, it is important to realize how oxygen is created in our atmosphere. You guessed it: carbon dioxide is involved. Plants use the carbon dioxide we exhale (in combination with water) during the process of photosynthesis. The resultant byproduct is oxygen. So, let’s not regulate carbon dioxide out of existence just yet.

Our Nation’s Resource policy should also address our energy needs in a cogent manner. There are two essential categories of energy to consider: renewable and non-renewable.

Renewable energy offers the extraordinary advantage of self-replenishment. Its sources are theoretically unlimited (i.e., biomass, geothermal, solar, water, wind), and its environmental impact is comparatively non-existent. The challenge is that our current level of technology generally does not convert these sources into usable energy in an efficient manner and at a competitive price.

Non-renewable energy is more efficiently harnessed and consumed by our existing technology. This provides a considerable economic advantage to these sources in the near term. Given our current economic climate, this short-term advantage is of considerable importance. However, because such sources are by definition non-renewable, they are disadvantaged in the very long term because they may ultimately be exhausted.

The four most utilized non-renewable energy sources are oil (and petroleum products), natural gas, coal, and uranium according to the DOE (after all, we should get something for $25 billion a year). Each of these familiar energy sources also creates potential environmental hazards, to wit: oil (air, water, and ground pollution associated with spills); natural gas (water pollution associated with fracking); coal (air pollution); and uranium (air, water and ground pollution associated with failed containment and the collateral consequences of nuclear threats).

The key is to develop a comprehensive energy policy that is attentive to near-term needs and capabilities while being mindful of our long-term obligation to provide a safe and resource-rich environment to future generations. It is irresponsible to pretend that there are no countervailing forces that must drive our short and long-term strategies when it comes to energy and the environment. Party politics must be put aside, and the People must be told the truth. Legitimate options exist to create a sophisticated Resource policy that will ensure everyone’s best interest rather than pandering to the needs of a few. We will explore such options in the next article in this series by using The FREEDOM Process to vet the issue of oil.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A President for the People, in the Communities section of The Washington Times.

Author: testsite_tjohara

Don’t waste your vote on a Democrat or Republican

The First Amendment and the Failure of a Free Press

Jobs and the Economy: A Presidential Candidate’s Private Sector Approach

America: When would you like your wake-up call?

The Declaration of Independence: Circa 2012

The Health Care Mandate: Constitutional but still broken

How Americans Elect became Americans’ Regret

Humanitarian Relief: NGOs and the U.S. Government

The issue of Oil examined by The FREEDOM Process

Energy and the Environment: An inseparable pair

Services

HEADQUARTERS

email CONTACT