Author: testsite_tjohara

A rational foreign policy solution for Afghanistan

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 22, 2012 – As was discussed in Foreign Policy:  A Rational Approach for the U.S. (The Washington Times Communities, March 20, 2012), our Constitution does not provide direct guidance in the area of foreign policy.  It wasn’t until 1936 that the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Government had exclusive and plenary power over the execution of foreign affairs based on the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation.

Building upon that premise, I suggest extending the concept of sovereignty to every other nation as the foundation of our foreign policy. That decision alone will provide a consistency that is sorely lacking in a U.S. foreign policy that is all too often driven by Party politics.

Moving forward, we need to develop a stable foreign policy rather than one that vacillates with any political opportunity that is presented. The impact can be demonstrated by applying the “sovereign nation” concept to our Nation’s plight in Afghanistan and stepping that decision through The FREEDOM Process™ (as was discussed in Presidential policy formation and The FREEDOM Process – The Washington Times Communities, March 12, 2012).

The FREEDOM Process™

Foreign Policy impact:  If we are to respect the sovereignty of other nations as we expect them to respect ours, we must withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.

Our original mission in Afghanistan was in response to the 9/11 attack on the United States. It was to disrupt and/or destroy al-Qaeda’s terrorist operations in that country.  That mission was accomplished several years ago.

There no longer is an immediate or impending threat to the United States that would otherwise potentially justify our continued presence under the “common Defence (sic)” provision of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

We also need to acknowledge that al-Qaeda and other hostile entities have habitually justified their animus towards the United States on the basis of our occupation of foreign territories. The “sovereign nations” approach eliminates that excuse.

Correspondingly, such hostile entities must be clearly told that we will respond swiftly and disproportionately to any future terrorist attacks on American citizens at home or abroad.  Similarly, as a sovereign nation in our own right, we do not need nor will we seek the world’s permission to defend our country accordingly.

Over the past several years, we have experienced “mission creep” in Afghanistan (an enlargement of the nature and scope of the initiative). Our focus today is one of “nation-building,” which is a politically correct phrase for what used to be viewed as colonial expansion. 

“Nation building” is not a divine right or even a Constitutionally-supported responsibility of the United States. We have no moral authority to impose our form of government or our socio-economic system on another country, particularly without its permission.

Afghanistan’s President, Hamid Karzai, recently stated, “Afghanistan is ready right now to take all security responsibilities completely.”  In response, we should begin to systematically withdraw our troops from Afghanistan.  The primary gating factor should be how to accomplish the withdrawal in the most expeditious manner while still providing for the safety of our troops.

Concurrent with the withdrawal of our troops, the United States Government should also withdraw its foreign aid. First: there is marginal Constitutional support for providing such aid other than an extremely strained interpretation of how it might impact the “general Welfare of the United States” (again, under Article I, Section 8).  Second: if we are to respect the sovereignty of a foreign country, we cannot be selective in that regard.

This would not preclude private citizens from exercising their right to provide charitable contributions to other countries either directly or through the Non-Government Organization (“NGO”) of their choice.  It simply reflects the fact that it is not the responsibility of, or even within the authority of the United States Government to use taxpayer money to support the citizens of other sovereign nations.

In the case of Afghanistan, President Karzai’s government should be given every opportunity to succeed or fail on its own merit. Every country should have the right to evolve at its own measured rate rather than at the rate that we deem appropriate for them.

To some, this may seem to be an “uncaring” approach at a visceral level.  However, if we truly believe as the Declaration of Independence states, “…that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” then we need to respect the “Liberty” of citizens of other sovereign nations to pursue “Happiness” as they choose to define it.  Otherwise, we are arrogantly defining it for them.

This is not a xenophobic approach but rather a celebration of the richness of the world’s diversity.  There are 196 to 258 different countries in the world (depending on one’s definition of the word “country”).  Each one reflects its own unique culture, political structure, and socio-economic system. We should have no expectation of imposing our will on them. In turn, those who reject the United States’ culture, political structure, and socio-economic system have a wide variety of other countries in which they can pursue “happiness” as they personally prefer to define it.

Beyond the foreign policy effect of applying the “sovereign nations” approach to Afghanistan, there is a cascading impact that spans many other facets of our Nation’s issues.  All it takes is a thoughtful, non-partisan assessment of the opportunities that are presented.  We can use the remaining elements of the FREEDOM acronym to briefly explore them.

Resource Policy impact:  The withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan would have a direct influence on national energy and environmental issues.

The Department of Defense (“DoD”) is the single largest consumer of fuel in the United States and in the world.  A significant share of that consumption is attributable to troop logistics and the operation of vehicles and crafts in foreign lands.

Withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan would lead to a quantifiable reduction in the military’s carbon footprint and, in that regard, contribute favorably to the environment.

Similarly, a withdrawal would create a noticeable decrease in the DoD’s demand for fuel and consumption thereof.  In turn, this would trigger serious economic savings (as described below).

Economic Policy impact:  A withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan would have a significant economic impact on our country.

The operating cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is rapidly approaching $1.32 trillion.  While we have technically withdrawn from Iraq, we continue to incur costs there on a daily basis.  As an ongoing war theater, Afghanistan accounts for about $512 billion of the total and continues to drain capital from our country at the rate of about $300 million per day.

While not all of that money can be recaptured through a withdrawal, those numbers do not reflect the related costs that are incurred at home (which are estimated to be of the same magnitude).  Therefore, the potential savings to the taxpayer would be considerable barring some fiscally irresponsible act by Congress or the current Administration.

Some of the money could be used to reduce debt, while the remainder could be deployed to build new bases and/or expand existing ones to host returning troops (see Defense Policy below).  The latter utilization would create new construction jobs that, in turn, would lower unemployment costs and stimulate economic growth (i.e., through increased consumption and an expanded tax base).

As has already been discussed, there is an opportunity to achieve a sizeable reduction in fuel consumption by withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan.  The current rate of consumption is roughly 10,000 barrels per day (3.64 million barrels per year).  Any meaningful reduction of that amount would have a significant effect on supply-side economics which would have the potential to measurably impact gasoline prices for the taxpayer.

To provide a perspective for those who are unfamiliar with the logistics cost associated with maintaining a military presence overseas, Pentagon officials testified before the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee that a gallon of fuel costs the DoD about $400 by the time it is delivered to the remote locations of U.S. troops in Afghanistan (and that was in 2009). So, the next time you hear Party candidates pontificating about how Wall Street speculation or fuel taxes are increasing the price of gasoline in the United States, ask them what the impact of the war in Afghanistan has been.

Education Policy impact:  A withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan would also have a potential supply-side impact on our nation’s education system.

Many of our returning troops would be likely to return to school. An increase in student population would help spread university and trade school operating costs across a broader base.  It would also increase the use of infrastructure in a way that would accelerate the payback period and increase the long-term return on investment for the institutions.

A corresponding reduction in the cost of education per student (i.e., as fixed costs would be spread across a broader base) could also occur.  Worst case: the expanded pool of students would serve as a buffer against inflation and the ever-rising cost of higher education.

Defense Policy impact:  Withdrawing troops from Afghanistan would obviously reduce the operating expenses of the DoD. However, there is also an opportunity to redeploy our troops in a meaningful way that would produce collateral benefits for our country.

While some troops will cycle out of the military, others will remain in uniform.  There are two associated realities:  (1) those who remain need to be based somewhere, and (2) they need to maintain a state of readiness.

As our military troops’ sworn oath is to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic…,” we have the opportunity to redeploy them along our northern and southern borders.  In turn, they would be in a position to maintain their state of readiness by patrolling those same borders.

This would not only accomplish the DoD’s military imperative, it would help address the long-standing problems associated with eliminating (or at least dramatically reducing) the threats of terrorist infiltration, drug trafficking and illegal immigration. 

The border redeployment might also require new bases to be built and/or existing bases to be expanded. The Federal Government owns sufficient property along our borders to address this issue, and any related construction activity would create job growth, lower unemployment costs and stimulate economic expansion.

In addition, there are certain operating efficiencies that could be gained by having the military defend our borders that go well beyond the supreme advantage we would enjoy relative to surveillance and defense capabilities under that scenario.

Operations Policy impact:  As was referenced immediately above, the redeployment of troops along U.S. borders (made possible by the withdrawal of those troops from Afghanistan) would offer certain opportunities to improve the operating efficiency and cost-effectiveness of our Federal Government.

After 9/11, the Bush Administration created new layers of agencies (e.g., the TSA, DHS, etc.) to help improve communication with respect to domestic threats. These agencies created tens of thousands of new jobs, promulgated tens of thousands of pages of new regulations, cost tens of billions of dollars to implement, and had a relatively modest impact on providing a more secure Nation for the American people.

What it was effective at creating were more jurisdictional issues between agencies (i.e., whose responsibility is it for a particular issue: the DoJ’s, the FBI’s, the ATF’s, the DEA’s, the TSA’s, the DHS’s, the INS’s, FEMA’s, etc.?).  In the meantime, drug trafficking expanded to an estimated $35-$45 billion business in money flowing from the United States to Mexico and our borders remain a revolving door for anyone who wants to enter our country illegally (whether it be for work or for more nefarious reasons).

By positioning our returning troops along the borders, we would have the most sophisticated surveillance capabilities at our disposal and the most effective and efficient defense team on Earth.  The jurisdictional issues would no longer get in the way of creating a secure border, and the alphabet soup of agencies could be re-evaluated for consolidation and right-sizing.

Border-related intelligence gathering and enforcement would be centralized within the DoD, whose various branches have already demonstrated the ability to communicate and work together in an effective and coordinated manner.  The increased safety of our citizens as well as the potential economic savings is almost beyond comprehension.  The economic savings are not only tied to the agency consolidation opportunities, etc. but are magnified by the societal gains associated with gaining control of our borders (i.e., consider: subsequent reduction in law enforcement, judicial, and prison costs; the impact on our health, education and welfare systems; the effect on our job market; etc.).

If you are not already sickened by the enormous waste, consider the taxpayer costs associated with the DoJ’s prosecution of States that are trying to supplement the Federal Government’s failed enforcement (not to mention the waste of taxpayer funds at the state level associated with drafting and defending any associated legislation and providing for auxiliary law enforcement).

All of this could be replaced by what is essentially a fixed cost:  the cost of maintaining the United States military in a state of readiness.

Now, let’s examine the final letter of the FREEDOM acronym, which stands for Medical.

Medical Policy impact:  While “medical” within the context of “FREEDOM” includes all quality of life issues (including Social Security, etc.), for the sake of brevity, I will only address the “medical” consequences of troop withdrawal in the traditional sense of the word.

If you have ever greeted returning troops at an airport or attended a veterans’ event, you already have an appreciation for the favorable medical consequences of withdrawing troops from Afghanistan.

We have lost the lives of approximately 1,900 U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Nearly 16,000 more have been wounded and it is difficult to assess how many more have returned home suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We do know that the PTSD number is likely to be high since more returning veterans commit suicide each year than are actually killed in combat on foreign soil.

I do not recall a time in my life in which I have seen more amputees in our society.  Perhaps it is because prosthetic devices and therapy have improved to the degree that more of the injured are able to return to productive lives than in the past. However, that does not take away from the reality that far too many individuals have had their lives permanently changed by our Nation’s continued presence in Afghanistan.

Consider the cost associated with ongoing care. Consider the cost associated with ancillary medical conditions that might arise in the future.  Most importantly, consider the cost to the individuals themselves and to their families and friends.

__________

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.

Read more

Foreign Policy: A Rational Approach for the U.S.

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 20, 2012 – The United States’ foreign policy should be clear and consistent.  It should not be used as a pawn for political gain. Unfortunately, in today’s world of Party politics, the latter is more of the norm.  It is time to fix that problem.

Recent history is replete with examples of how Party politics have entered into our Nation’s foreign policy decisions, and as George Santayana prophetically said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (Vol.1 of Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason). 

During the 2008 campaign, then-Senator Obama positioned himself as a great friend of Israel.  He emphasized his belief in restraint and diplomacy when it came to addressing hostile nations.  Sen. Obama called for the closing of Guantanamo (no later than January 1, 2010) because, in his opinion, its mere presence incited terrorist organizations to respond with violence. Then, while admitting to the success of the Bush Administration’s “surge” strategy in Iraq, he stood fast on his claim that no one could definitively prove that his accelerated withdrawal plan would not have produced similar or even better results.

Sen. Obama’s campaign rhetoric offered such great promise that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize only 12 days after taking office as President of the United States. Let us examine what has transpired since that time.

Our Nation’s relationship with Israel has become somewhat strained. President Obama has pressured Israel to return to its 1967 borders, which Prime Minister Netanyahu described as “indefensible.” The President also has been accused of placing the Palestinian Hamas authority on an equal footing with Israel’s leadership despite Hamas’ reputation for terrorism and its refusal to recognize Israel. Of course, when the President has appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he has reiterated that he has “Israel’s back.”

Egypt’s “Arab Spring” presented a new spin on an old problem. The United States had long supported Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.  He was considered to be an “ally” of our country primarily because he wasn’t openly hostile towards us. Over the 30-year span during which President Mubarak ruled Egypt, the United States provided billions of dollars of foreign aid much of which found its way into President Mubarak’s pocket.

Then, when the people began to rise up against his dictatorship, it became politically expedient to denounce the Mubarak regime. President Obama embraced the Arab Spring and called for President Mubarak to “step down” when it had become apparent that this was inevitable. Subsequently, President Obama guaranteed $3 billion in loans to Egypt despite the fact that the future leadership of Egypt remained largely in question reminding us once again of Mr. Santayana’s quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

A similar course was taken with regard to Libya when President Obama called for Muammar Gaddafi to step down; again, once it seemed to be inevitable This is called “being Presidential” and creates an optic of “strong leadership.” The reality is that it is the equivalent of predicting the score of a game the day after it is played.

In the case of Libya, President Obama upped the ante when he called for air strikes (without the approval of Congress) and stated that he “refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” It begs the question of how many photos from Syria it will take before he executes the same unilateral (and potentially unconstitutional) decision with respect to that country.

Perhaps the greatest distinction between the two nations resided within their leaders. Muammar Gaddafi was relatively well known within the United States as compared to Syria’s President, Bashar al-Assad. He was also generally reviled. That combination made Colonel Gaddafi a much better political target than President Assad.

That is not to say that the United States should become involved in the Syrian revolution (if one, in fact, is occurring).  It is just meant to point out the dangerous precedent political rhetoric can suggest if it were to be taken seriously and applied on a consistent basis as if it represented legitimate foreign policy.

To be clear, it is every bit as disturbing that President Obama’s former presidential challenger, Senator McCain, seems to default to intervening militarily in the affairs of foreign countries.  Then again, at least Sen. McCain is consistent. Unfortunately, he is consistently wrong.

The President did remain “Nobel” in his attempt to close Guantanamo. On January 22, 2009, the President signed an Executive Order with great pomp and circumstance that called for the closing of Guantanamo no later than January 1, 2010. As of today, that directive remains dramatically unfulfilled.

As I wrote nearly two years ago in The National Platform of Common Sense, I find it interesting that President Obama has remained “committed” to closing down Guantanamo because of the theory that Gitmo’s mere existence incites terrorism, but his Administration apparently has not been concerned with the saber-rattling of its Attorney General.  Specifically, when talking about the potential capture of Osama Bin Laden, Attorney General Holder said: “Either he will be killed by us, or he will be killed by his own people so that he is not captured by us. We know that. … (We’ll be) reading Miranda rights to his corpse, be­cause I think that’s what we’re going to be dealing with. He is not going to be alive.”

Considering that we did in fact kill Osama Bin Laden when the opportunity presented itself, we can only hope that discerning members of al-Qaeda will distinguish between the President’s promise to close Guantanamo and his fulfillment of Attorney General Holder’s prophesy.

Correspondingly, it is difficult to imagine that few have challenged the incongruity of the Obama Administration’s approval of targeting suspected terrorists for execution (both foreign nationals and U.S. citizens) while it chooses to spend taxpayer money to sue States that try to enforce border control. Then again, “inconsistency” is the most consistent element of our foreign policy.

Moving on to our Congressionally-approved military action in Iraq and Afghanistan, we have tacitly ended our occupation of Iraq. Al-Qaeda commemorated the ninth anniversary of the War in Iraq by killing 40 citizens of that country. While progress has been made and a brutal dictator eliminated, it will likely be decades before Iraq resembles the type of democratic society our political leaders theoretically envisioned.

Similarly, our involvement in Afghanistan must come into question.  The original mission was to drive al-Qaeda from its safe haven in Afghanistan.  While the mission was perhaps misguided (since we apparently only relocated the training centers to safe havens in Pakistan), it has long since been accomplished.  However, we have chosen to remain to facilitate “nation-building.”  Once again, we should be reminded of George Santayana’s quote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

The reality is that the Constitution doesn’t provide direct guidance with respect to foreign policy. It wasn’t until 1936 that the Supreme Court decided that the Federal Government had exclusive and plenary power over the execution of foreign affairs based on the fact that the United States is a sovereign nation. So, let’s build upon the “sovereign nation” concept.

FOREIGN POLICY:  The basis of our own Nation’s sovereignty should be a fundamental respect for the sovereignty of other nations.

What are the consequences of that simple policy statement?

It recognizes that the United States is not the “watchdog” of the world.  It is not responsible for the socio-economic and political decisions of other nations. Indeed, if we expect other nations to respect the sovereignty of the United States, we must equally honor the sovereignty of those nations.

This is not to suggest an “isolationistic” point of view but rather to pragmatically accept the limitations of our Government’s authority as well as to acknowledge its primary responsibility, which is to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

When President Obama initially traveled the globe to apologize for “America’s arrogance,” he wasn’t entirely wrong. If his point was to emphasize that the United States has increasingly tried to force its will on other countries, his argument had merit. Unfortunately, his actions since that time have not reflected any meaningful change of course.

We continue to pursue fruitless “nation-building” initiatives (such as in Iraq and Afghanistan) that have been abject failures and cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives over the years. In addition, nearly $30 billion in taxpayer funds are directed toward foreign aid every year, and ironically, the preponderance of it goes to fund the military investments of a handful of predominantly hostile nations. Benjamin Franklin’s definition of insanity would seem to be apropos.

What if all that time, money, and effort were redirected to resolve our own economic challenges rather than attempting to influence the political environments of other countries?

What if we concentrated on reducing unemployment, poverty, and illiteracy in the United States (areas in which our performance has markedly worsened over the past few years)?

What if we created a model of excellence that inspired other nations to look to us for guidance rather than trying to impose our ideals on them through our purported “nation-building” efforts?

That is the United States of America that I envision:  a country that presents such a robust model of success that every nation aspires to learn from our model; a country that engages in the affairs of other nations upon invitation rather than by dictate.

To accomplish this transformation, we need to do the following:

  • Respect the sovereignty of other nations.
    Concentrate on fixing our problems and creating a better model for the rest of the world. 
  • Support those nations that consistently demonstrate their support of the United States.
  • Extend the highest level of consideration to provide such nations with any requested assistance that is in alignment with the strategies, priorities, and capabilities of the United States. 
  • Respect the sovereignty of those nations that do not support the United States.
  • Withdraw U.S. troops from any country that has not requested our military presence
  • Withdraw U.S. troops from any country that has requested our military presence but has undermined our troops’ safety or effectiveness.
  • Withdraw all foreign aid from such countries so as not to interfere with their social autonomy to truly demonstrate our respect for their sovereign right as a nation.
  • Leave modest diplomatic channels open to facilitate communication.
  • Request the United Nations to take a more active role with respect to world peace.
  • Request the U.N. to take a more proactive role with respect to maintaining the peace and responding to situations that potentially require military intervention.
  • Request the U.N. to exercise a more rational basis in the formation of its committees to maintain some semblance of credibility (as contra-examples: Sudan, which has orchestrated a genocide in Darfur, sits on the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, and Iran sits on the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women)
  • If the U.N. ignores the requested changes, reduce the United States funding of the U.N. (currently:  approximately 22% of the U.N.’s general budget and 27% of its peacekeeping force), or consider withdrawing from the U.N. and requiring the organization to move to another country.
    Establish equitable trade relations by mitigating regulatory and labor disparities to the degree possible to create competitive parity.
  • Create trade agreements that establish new market opportunities for all countries involved.
  • Respond to emerging global issues or threats in a rational way:  time permitting, exhaust all diplomatic channels to resolve global issues or threats to the United States; in the event that diplomatic channels fail to resolve the issue or threat in a timely manner, pursue and impose economic and other sanctions to achieve the desired result; in the event that other countries choose to provide alternatives that allow the infringing country to circumvent such sanctions, deploy cascading sanctions against such enabling countries in a form that would offset any economic (or other) benefit that such enabling countries would otherwise derive; in the event that all other efforts fail to successfully resolve an issue in a timely manner and that such issue poses an immediate or impending threat to the United States, explore all other options (including military).

Consistently applied, this approach would:  (1) stabilize our foreign policy in a manner that is actually consistent with our Constitution; (2) work to create more of a global “equilibrium” with respect to economic and political interests; (3) shift the responsibility for “global order” to global entities (such as the U.N.); and (4) dramatically reduce the cost of our forays into the affairs of other sovereign countries. With regard to “costs,” let us not limit our awareness to the trillions of taxpayer dollars that have been spent. Let us primarily acknowledge the greater cost in human lives that has been incurred.

We have lost the lives of roughly 6,500 soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Approximately 50,000 more have been wounded and it is difficult to assess how many have returned to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  In that regard, we know that more returning veterans commit suicide each year than are actually killed in combat on foreign soil.

These are all real people. They are not just numbers to be reported at a Congressional Committee hearing or reflected upon by the President on Memorial Day, and the lives of each of these people impact the lives of an exponential number of family members and friends.

Correspondingly, we can only guess at how significantly greater the number is in each category for the citizens of the countries that have hosted the theaters of war.

To quote the President, “We can do better.”  The question becomes:  “Then, why haven’t we?”

A consistent and Constitutionally-valid foreign policy can have a cascading effect on so many other facets of our lives.  In my next article, I will take that approach and apply it to Afghanistan.  Then, we will employ The FREEDOM Process™ to “connect the dots” and better understand the benefits of executing a cogent strategy.

__________

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.

Read more

Presidential policy formation and The FREEDOM Process™

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 12, 2012 – Party candidates for the Office of President of the United States habitually offer a moving target when it comes to policy statements.  They ebb and flow with the tides of public opinion that are represented by polling results.  Party candidates also appear to lack a process that tests the breadth and depth of their proposed solutions.

America deserves better.

Allow me to present an alternative:  a clear foundation upon which all policy decisions must be based; and a method for examining solutions I call The FREEDOM Process ™.

The foundation for Presidential policy decisions should be fairly obvious.  Article II requires the following Oath of Office:  “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Anyone seeking to represent the People as President of the United States should understand the gravitas of those words and be fully committed to the responsibilities associated therewith.

The Oath of Office is particularly important because it establishes the basis upon which a President’s decisions must be made (i.e., the Constitution).  Correspondingly, it demands that the President respect the differences in authority that exist between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of our Government as well as the Liberty that is reserved to the People and the powers that are reserved to States (under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments).

Article II defines the powers of the Executive Branch.  They are fairly limited.  The most compelling responsibility of the President is to serve as the civilian Commander in Chief of the military.  The President may also grant reprieves and pardons for certain federal offenses.  Additionally, the President has the power to enter into treaties and to nominate Cabinet members, Ambassadors, Justices, and other public Ministers and Consuls with the advice and consent of the Senate.  Similarly, there are other comparatively minor powers of appointment that do not require the consent of the Senate.

However, the President’s unstated power resides within his or her ability to influence the direction of Congress and the Federal Judiciary.  It’s called leadership, and it must be executed without political bias.  Instead, it must be based upon a firm and consistent application of the parameters that govern the Office and require the President to serve all of the People rather than just those of a particular political persuasion.

It is important to note that leadership has nothing to do with any misstatement of authority.  I mention this because some of the greatest misrepresentations of our time have started with the words, “When I am elected President, I will … repeal, enact, overturn, etc.”

If you hear Presidential candidates use those words, they are either intentionally distorting their power to secure your vote, or they are fundamentally unaware of the limits of their Constitutional authority.  Neither of those alternatives bodes well for our Country.

In my 25+ years of experience in corporate turnarounds, there was one common thread that is applicable to our country as well.  Each of the companies had gone through the exercise of creating their Vision, Mission, and Values Statements.  They had cast them in bronze and hung them up on the wall only to be dusted once a month by the maintenance crew.  Then, their management teams began to do what was expedient in the short term without regard to whether it was congruent with their Vision, Mission, and Values Statements.  Their management teams made decisions that were in their own best interests (relative to bonuses, etc.) rather than what was in the best interests of their companies, and as a result, their companies began to fail.

That is exactly where we are with regard to our country.

In the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, we have the greatest political Vision, Mission, and Values Statements in the history of mankind.  Unfortunately, those who represent their Parties rather than the People have chosen to ignore the content of those documents in favor of what is politically expedient in the short term (i.e., what maintains or expands their Party’s power; what attracts donors; what will get them re-elected; etc.).  We cannot afford to allow this to continue.

I take the Office of President very seriously.  I owe you the truth.  I will not overstate what I can do.  What I will pledge to do is to “… faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”  I will consistently apply the Mission, Vision and Values of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence to every policy decision I make as President.  That is how we will bring consistency back to the United States Government and to the policies we present to the People and to the world.

The FREEDOM Process

Political policies have become more reflective of tactical sound bites than well-reasoned strategies.  They generally lack breadth and depth.  Everything is presented as a Yes/No, In/Out, or For/Against decision.  That is all you have come to expect because that is all the Parties are willing to offer.

The Parties manufacture these restrictive beliefs because they need to differentiate their positions.  It has become a game in which the most well-crafted, emotional and intentional misrepresentation wins the day.  If they can create fear or anger in your mind, their Party “wins” your dollars and your votes which, unfortunately, are their focal points.

To combat this, I created a process by which you can test a candidate’s knowledge.  It’s called The FREEDOM Process™.   It also resolves complex issues into their key components, which is a critical element in a turnaround environment.

In The FREEDOM Process™, “FREEDOM” is an acronym in which:

F stands for Foreign Policy, including but not limited to foreign aid, international trade, diplomatic relations, treaties, interaction with the U.N., N.A.T.O., etc.

R stands for Resource Policy, including but not limited to energy, environmental issues, natural resources, other assets, etc.

E stands for Economic Policy, including but not limited to jobs, economic expansion, debt management, the money supply, etc.

E stands for Education Policy, including but not limited to primary, secondary, trade, and higher education content and assistance, etc.

D stands for Defense Policy, including but not limited to proactive and reactive defense capabilities against foreign and domestic threats, base alignment, foreign occupation, etc.

O stands for Operations Policy, including but not limited to operating efficiencies, regulatory issues, immigration, human resource issues, etc.

M stands for Medical Policy including but not limited to health care costs, Medicare, Medicaid, quality of life issues (including Social Security), etc.

Without belaboring the point, every policy decision impacts one or more additional policy areas.  If a candidate cannot “connect the dots,” it is because he or she doesn’t have a fundamental enough understanding of the issue to do so.

Our country would be better served by core policy statements that offered clear direction rather than self-serving sound bites that are crafted to “spin” public sentiment.  The problem for Party candidates lies within the fact that this would not allow them to vacillate on issues for their own self-interests.  It would also require a demonstration of true leadership skills.

The FREEDOM Process™ is a litmus test of a candidate’s breadth and depth of knowledge.  It provides an amazingly quick way to ferret out whether candidates have only been prepared on speaking points by their staff or whether they have a fundamental knowledge of every core subject and the ability to discern how each decision can be leveraged to the advantage of the American people.

It is not about who has the best sound bites, and it’s not about who has the best “spin.”  It’s about who has the best solutions.

To allow you to become more familiar with The FREEDOM Process™, I will use it in future articles to present solutions to our Nation’s most pressing issues.  The disarray of our current foreign policy, along with the volatility in Afghanistan precipitated by the recent accidental burning of the Qurans as well as the shooting incident involving 16 civilians, makes that a logical starting point.  As a result, my next article will discuss our foreign policy as it pertains to Afghanistan and how an application of The FREEDOM Process™ can bring clarity and logic to it.

Until then, I hope you will “cast your vote” to apply the First Amendment as it was intended.  Please “support” me on Americans Elect.  It will send a message that every Presidential candidate deserves the right to be heard rather than just those who can afford to spend tens of millions of dollars to buy media coverage.

__________

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.

Read more

Super PACs; Super Tuesday; Supercilious Politicians

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 8, 2012 –  We all survived the reality TV and Leap Year event otherwise known as Super Tuesday.  This time, it was influenced by the presence of a new phenomenon:  Super PACs.  Yet, the most prominent role remained that of the Parties’ supercilious candidates.

The four Super PACs that support the GOP candidates spent nearly $12 million on their Super Tuesday initiatives, including (according to estimates by opensecrets.org) nearly $6 million over the last five days of the campaign.

Restore Our Future (in support of Mitt Romney) and Winning the Future (in support of Newt Gingrich) led the way with White & Blue Fund (in support of Rick Santorum) and Endorse Liberty (in support of Ron Paul) finishing a distant third and fourth, respectively.

Now, ask yourself the question:  “What was accomplished?”

At the end of the day, Super Tuesday was anything but “super” because very little changed.  There were no major shifts in momentum; Mitt Romney continued to lead the Republican candidates in a “yawn-inspiring” rather than “awe-inspiring” way; Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Rep. Ron Paul gained a share of delegates and the literary license to claim “victory” as they each chose to define it; and President Obama remained the Democrats’ de facto candidate.

Each of the GOP candidates chanted the mantra:  “I’m the only one who can defeat Obama.”  Each argued that he was the “true conservative.”  However, none of them offered anything in the way of new, relevant, and specific solutions to our Nation’s problems.

Of course, the President didn’t offer anything in the way of new, relevant, and specific solutions to our Nation’s problems either.  In fairness, he was busy calling his first press conference of the year on Super Tuesday during which he addressed the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke controversy as follows:

“And the reason I called Ms. Fluke is because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on.  I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way.  And I don’t want them attacked or called horrible names because they’re being good citizens.  And I wanted Sandra to know that I thought her parents should be proud of her, and that we want to send a message to all our young people that being part of a democracy involves argument and disagreements and debate, and we want you to be engaged, and there’s a way to do it that doesn’t involve you being demeaned and insulted, particularly when you’re a private citizen.”

This statement came about 10 days after Priorities USA Action (the Super PAC that supports the President) accepted a $1 million pledge from Bill Maher, whose past comments about Sarah Palin went well beyond the inappropriate language of Mr. Limbaugh.  Perhaps that’s why the President’s speech writers included the “private citizen” exception.  Personally, I do not think that private citizens who choose to run for public office should be treated with any less respect than those who do not.

Interestingly enough, Priorities USA Action felt the need to spend $77 thousand dollars in Ohio to run anti-Romney ads.  This may have been to garner support for Rick Santorum to extend the contested Primary campaign and force the GOP candidates to continue to draw down their financial reserves, or it may have just been for practice.

In truth, Priorities USA Action doesn’t need to spend any money to secure the President’s Party nomination.  He is effectively running unopposed.  His only real opposition is his record.

Yet, the President did recently pass a few milestones.  He attended his 100th campaign fund-raiser only 332 days after formally announcing his candidacy.  He also headlined his 191st fund-raiser since taking office, thus blowing past the record of 173 formerly held by President George W. Bush (over his entire term).

Luckily, the citizens of the United States get reimbursed the cost of first-class airfare whenever the President flies around the country to attend one of these fund-raisers.  Of course, since the operating cost of Air Force One is approximately $181 thousand an hour, the reimbursement of a first-class ticket doesn’t exactly make the taxpayer whole.

To be sure, this is exactly what every prior Party President has done.

How refreshing would it be to be served by a President who has pledged never to waste a minute of time or a penny of taxpayer money on political fund-raising?

Think about that:  a full-time President who wouldn’t take advantage of the taxpayers even though the “system” would otherwise permit it.  That will never happen with a Party candidate.  The Parties won’t allow it.  That is one of the reasons I am running.

You deserve better.

You deserve a leader who would rather see $12 million dollars spent on the sick or the poor than on political ads.

You deserve a leader who believes you have the right to hear his thought process rather than just the carefully crafted campaign promises of some Party strategists.

You deserve a leader who believes you have the right to hear his depth of knowledge rather than the sound bites of his Party’s professional writers.

You deserve a leader who will create an environment that fosters civil discussion and the formation of substantive solutions rather than destructive polarization of Party politics.

You deserve a leader who believes that the Office of President of the United States is a full-time job on behalf of the People rather than a vehicle to enhance the political power of a particular Party.

While the Primary process continues, it’s time for me to get to work.  I will share my leadership philosophy and a process I have created for fostering civil political discussions that result in substantive solutions (The FREEDOM Process™).  I will also offer to facilitate a Solution Summit for my fellow Presidential candidates with the goal of reaching an agreement on solutions that can be implemented immediately rather than waiting until Inauguration Day to take action.  Then, I will address whatever issues you would like me to discuss.  Together, we will make progress … because you deserve better.

__________

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.

Read more

What if the Presidency wasn’t for sale?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 2, 2012 – Last week’s column (Politics won’t be a team sport when I’m President) exposed how the Parties manipulate their Presidential candidates in a manner that virtually precludes the candidates from exercising any independent judgment or having any meaningful impact (if elected).  While the candidates are effectively required to “sell their souls” to their respective Parties, they are not alone.  For all of their braggadocio, the Parties are not the source of power they pretend to be.  They are only the cheerleaders.

The real power lies within the grasp of those who would treat our Government as if it were a marionette; pulling strings to get what they want.  These are the people who receive prestigious (and often unwarranted) political appointments at taxpayer expense.  These are the people whose companies (or investments) receive “inappropriate” appropriations of taxpayer money.  These are the people who gain direct access to the President to try to shape policy decisions in a way that is favorable to them (again, at taxpayer expense).

This is not an indictment of our current President.  It is not a problem that is limited to a particular political Party.  It is an epidemic that has infected our political system and is killing a core value of our country:  the one that states that “all men are created equal.”

There can be no “equality” when a small number of individuals are allowed to buy political preferences that inure to their personal benefit as opposed to the “general Welfare of the United States” as specified by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

The problem is predominantly driven by money, although not completely.  There are exceptions that provide appointments, appropriations, and access in return for blind Party allegiance.  In effect, such “perks” are offered as rewards for those who have demonstrated their willingness to serve their Party in an obedient and submissive way.

However, those who gain favor through their obsequiousness to the Party pose a relatively minor threat to our democratic Republic.  They take what they are given by the Parties.  They don’t demand anything.  Those who pave their way with money are far more aggressive.

To be clear, this isn’t to suggest that the class-baiting tactic of the Democrats is a fair representation of the problem either.  It isn’t.

It is correct to assume that those who are in a position to influence political decisions through the infusion of money are, by definition, comparatively rich.  However, it is a complete and intentional misrepresentation to imply that all rich people are somehow evil.  The truth is that it is a relatively small cadre of individuals who routinely trade our Nation’s best interests to achieve their own personal goals.

If either Party wants to lump these individuals into a generic category, perhaps they should be lumped with Government officials.  After all, many of our elected representatives have established a personal net worth of well into the millions of dollars on a salary of $174 thousand a year.  Of course, they do not have to comply with the health care or retirement programs they have prescribed for the rest of us; they travel around the world on political junkets at our expense; and, until recently, they had even granted themselves an exception to “insider trading” laws.

The real problem isn’t tied to a class of individuals but rather to the Party paradigm that has fostered this corrupt environment.  Keep in mind that someone trying to buy “favor” can only be successful if someone is willing to sell it.

The Parties use money as a barrier to entry to preclude other parties and independent candidates from being able to compete on an equal playing field.  Do you remember the phrase, “All men are created equal?”  The Parties do everything within their power to make sure that the concept doesn’t apply to your choice of candidates.

As a result, the Parties have an insatiable appetite for maintaining and expanding their power, and it is fed by money.  Since they create nothing of value themselves, they are obligated to forage for the money and barter your Liberty for it.

The only way to correct the problem is to address it directly:  create a campaign that is insulated from the influence of money.

A legitimate question is:  How is this even possible?

The answer is that it wouldn’t have been possible just a few years ago.  The advancement of social media is the key.

To understand the power of the social network, you only need to reflect upon three recent phenomena:  the TEA Party, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the Arab Spring.

Despite traditional Party attacks designed to squelch the TEA Party movement (i.e., everything from dismissing it as “Astroturf” to characterizing its members as stupid and violent, and even calling them Nazis), the movement was able to leverage social media not only to survive but to have an overwhelming impact on the 2010 mid-term elections.

Similarly, Party attacks were launched against the Occupy Wall Street movement (i.e., everything from dismissing it as “union-controlled” to characterizing its members as lazy and violent, and even calling them Socialists).  Still, the movement was able to leverage social media to continue to this day.

As an aside:  are you detecting a trend yet when it comes to the Parties?

The Arab Spring was the ultimate litmus test.  This movement was challenged with “sticks and stones” as opposed to “names.”  People died.  Yet, the first step of the movement succeeded because of social media.

So, a heavy emphasis on social media is essential.

In the case of my candidacy, I need people to visit the links at the end of this article every single day.  I need them to “Like,” “Share,” “Favorite,” “Re-Tweet,” “Subscribe,” and “Comment” on a regular basis.

Then, cast a vote for me at Americans Elect by clicking on “Support” and “Track.”  This is a new vehicle through which an independent candidate can be placed on every State’s Presidential ballot without having to spend tens of millions of dollars to do so.

These actions will send a strong message to the Parties.  To quote the fictional news anchor, Howard Beale, in the brilliant movie Network, you’ll essentially be saying:  “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

The establishment of a growing viral base will also force the media to begin to cover the story; something that Party “media buys” will otherwise preclude from happening (see last week’s column).  Once that happens, you can look forward to an entirely different type of debate:  one that’s based upon substantive discussion rather than character assassination.

To definitively eliminate the influence of money, I have voluntarily limited contributions to a maximum of $100 per eligible voter.  While that may seem to be a simple statement, it has a complex impact.

First:  I wanted to establish a level of contribution that would preclude any inference of undue monetary influence.  One hundred dollars accomplishes that goal.  If you contribute $100, you should not stand by your phone waiting for a call that appoints you as an Ambassador.

Second:  I wanted the dollar amount to be within the grasp of every American.  While $100 is an incredibly significant amount to those who are without means, it is an amount they can save over time if they feel passionate about the cause.  I think that our poorest citizens deserve to have the same level of political influence as the Warren Buffets of our country.

Third:  compare my $100 cap to what each Party candidate can accept.  Under FEC Regulations, a candidate may accept $2,500 for the Primary Election and $2,500 for the General Election cycles, and they aggressively do so.

At this point, you might ask:  “How do Party candidates regularly hold $35,800-a-plate-dinners?”

Good question!

The candidate’s Campaign Committee retains $2,500 for the Primary Election cycle and another $2,500 for the General Election cycle.  The remaining $30,800 is deposited with the Party’s National Campaign Committee (with $30,800 being the maximum limit permitted by law).  Now, guess who benefits from the National Campaign Committee’s use of those funds?

Why do Party candidates need so much money?  It’s because they believe they can buy the election.

The candidates and their Parties will spend hundreds of millions of dollars on negative ads.  They will interrupt your meals with robocalls and inundate your home with unsolicited campaign literature. They will post billboards, bumper stickers, and yard signs everywhere the eye can see, and they will raffle dinners with the candidate and sell t-shirts, mugs, and pens on their websites.

They do this because we allow it.  We have become conditioned to accept whatever the Parties do.  Their ads offer no solutions; their robocalls and literature are all self-serving; their billboards, bumper stickers, and yard signs are devoid of any substance and are an insult to our intelligence; and their carnival and gift shop approach to the Presidency is demeaning to the Office.

It’s time to say, “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore.”

Here’s my commitment to you.  I’m not going to waste any time or money on the advertising gimmicks the Parties use to manipulate your vote.  Instead, I will use that time and money to advance the substantive discussion of solutions to our Nation’s problems; solutions that are in the best interests of the People rather than a political Party.

Next, you may have noticed that I limited contributions to “eligible voters.”  Only people can vote.  Therefore, in my opinion, only people should be able to contribute to political campaigns.  I do not need a Supreme Court ruling to tell me what the right thing to do is, and based on Citizens United, I wouldn’t want one.

While corporations, unions, and other special interest organizations are precluded by the FEC from contributing directly to campaigns, they are allowed to form PACs and contribute through them.  This implies that an entity is able to accurately represent the positions of its members, which is clearly a fictional assertion.

More importantly, there is no need for the fiction to exist.  Every member has the right to represent him or herself.  They can cast their own votes, and they can pledge their own money.  There is no need for an organization to “redistribute the wealth” (to use a popular phrase).

Limiting contributions to eligible voters, as I have, has an additional nuance.

There are several Party candidates who purport not to accept PAC money.  Unfortunately, they aren’t exactly telling you the whole story.  Are you familiar with the term “money laundering?”  If so, this will make perfect sense.

While it’s true that these candidates’ personal Campaign Committees don’t accept PAC money, their Party’s National Committees eagerly accept it and spend it on behalf of such candidates.  The candidates’ Campaign Committees also routinely accept contributions from other campaign committees, who, you guessed it, accept money from PACs. 

By limiting contributions to my campaign to those made by eligible voters, my Campaign Committee cannot directly or indirectly receive any contributions from PACs.  Therefore, corporations, unions, and other special interest organizations have absolutely no way of influencing my decision-making now or in the future.

Finally, let’s discuss what happens to residual campaign funds (at least within the context of campaigns that are managed in a fiscally responsible manner rather than run into a deficit position).

The Party tradition is to save those funds to (1) launch re-election campaigns; and (2) to distribute those funds to a variety of other candidates’ campaign committees to help them pay down deficits, position themselves for re-election runs, etc.   The second element has political strings attached whether stated or unstated.  Endorsements, votes on bills, “taking one for the team,” etc. are the currency traded for this magnanimous sharing of the wealth.

Conversely, I will be using an obscure provision of the FEC Regulations that the Parties generally choose to ignore.  I will be donating any residual campaign funds to three worthy charities:  (1) St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital to help children who are suffering from catastrophic disease; (2) The Dreyfuss Initiative, which focuses on returning civics to the curriculum of our schools and fostering an environment of civil debate and critical thought (two extremely important skills in which our educational process is currently deficient in addressing); and (3) Wounded Warrior Project because we owe them a debt we can never adequately repay.

I have structured my campaign to return the Office of President of the United States to the stature it deserves; to insulate it from Party pressure so that independent judgment can be exercised on behalf of the People; and to secure it from the corrupting influence of money that unjustly favors the few over the many.

The Presidency shouldn’t be for sale, and it shouldn’t go to the highest bidder.

If you’re ready to yell, “We’re mad as hell, and we’re not going to take it anymore,” I need your help.

Most people find the time to send political jokes and e-mails on a daily basis.  If you truly care about our country, please redirect some of that time to something that can make a difference.  In the time it takes to click on a few websites and share them with your friends, you can send a message to the Parties and help me begin to return America to the People.

__________

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.

Read more

Politics won’t be a team sport when I’m President

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., February 24, 2012 – Do you remember the brouhaha over President Obama’s alleged bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London?  I say “alleged” because his Press Secretary suggested that the President merely bent over because he was taller.  The reality is that the President and the Republican Party candidates routinely bow, not to foreign dignitaries, but to the political Parties that “own” them.

This actuality was revealed during the Republican Debate on February 22nd when Senator Santorum confessed that politics was a “team sport” and that “sometimes, you take one for the team.”  Translation:  when you’re a Party politician, you do what you’re told.

Your Party’s positions need not reflect what you personally believe.  As a Party politician, you are expected to comply.  In fact, you are essentially obligated to do so.

Party politicians (Presidential candidates in particular) effectively abdicate their ability to exercise independent judgment and leadership when they register as Party candidates.  They do this in return for the easy access to money, infrastructure, and media attention their Party promises to deliver.  Given his recent propensity, it is somewhat surprising that Senator Santorum has resisted the temptation to describe this political ritual as “a deal with the Devil.”

However, just because Senator Santorum is a Republican and made his “team” comment at a Republican debate, do not delude yourself into believing the problem is restricted to Republican Party candidates.  It is not.

The President has demonstrated his obeisance to the Party paradigm as well.  Rather than focusing his time on building the bipartisan support he promised during his 2008 campaign, he has become the champion of widening the political divide within our Nation.

In his recent energy speech, the President mocked what he described to be the Republican candidates’ “three-point plans for two-dollar gas.”  As he described it: “Step One is drill; Step Two is drill; and Step Three is keep drilling.”

When you compare that to the President’s recurring theme (i.e., Step One is to blame the Republicans; Step Two is to blame the Republicans; and Step Three is to keep blaming the Republicans), the difference isn’t particularly persuasive.

Interestingly enough, the Democrats held majorities in both the House and Senate for 44 out of the last 67 years; during which time it simultaneously held the Oval Office for 24 of those years.  It held majorities in the House for 52 of those 67 years and in the Senate for 47 of those 67 years.  Yet, everything seems to be the Republicans’ fault.

The President certainly must know that his Party’s record of accomplishment is every bit as bleak as the Republican’s record.  However, he is forced to pretend otherwise.

It is important to understand the magnitude of the debt that Party candidates owe to their respective Parties and how that debt is traditionally “repaid.”

In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama’s political machine raised approximately $745.7 million and spent $729.3 million (about twice what Senator McCain was able to raise and spend).

Subsequently, about 80 percent of senior White House appointments and 50 percent of Ambassadorships have been given to individuals who bundled $500 thousand or more for the President’s campaign.  Similarly, a disquieting amount of Federal funds has been distributed to bundlers’ companies and business investments in the form of appropriation favoritism and stimulus money (e.g., Solyndra, etc.).

This is not to suggest that Senator McCain would have behaved any differently had he won the election.  It is simply a reflection of how the Party paradigm works.

Moving forward, the President’s 2012 committee is targeting something in the vicinity of $1 billion in donations to secure his re-election, and that number doesn’t include the expected contributions of Super PACs.

On Feb. 10, 2007, then-Senator Obama harshly criticized “the cynics, the lobbyists, the special interests,” whom he said had “turned our Government into a game only they can afford to play.”  He went on to add, “They write the checks and you get stuck with the bill, they get the access while you get to write a letter, they think they own this Government, but we’re here today to take it back.”

Perhaps, he actually believed that at the time only later to discover that he had inevitably sold his soul to the Party paradigm.

The Parties have used money to erect barriers to Third Party candidates and legitimate independent candidates such as myself.  They have created a system that is radically skewed toward maintaining their base of power.

The cost to be certified by each State as a Presidential candidate on its ballot is astronomical.  Fortunately, an organization known as Americans Elect has been formed to try to provide a viable alternative.

Additionally, there is always an opportunity to exercise your Liberty and to write in a candidate’s name.  Did I mention how easy it is to spell my name?  Just look at OBAMA and change the “BM” to an “HR” to get OHARA.  Nothing could be easier.

The Parties have also created a system that features exorbitant marketing costs.  The Parties will spend hundreds of millions of dollars in “media buys” to “advertise” their candidates.  If you have ever wondered why you never see coverage of legitimate non-Party candidates, it is probably because the Parties’ media buys essentially have bought the media.

In that regard, I sincerely appreciate the independent Communities section of The Washington Times for providing me with a forum through which to expose the Party paradigm.  It’s a throwback to something in the First Amendment called “Free Speech.”

Those who exercise “Freedom of the Press,” which was granted in that same First Amendment, used to respect the responsibility that came with that right.  Unfortunately, candidates have become “clients” of the media and the responsibility to report the news has been adversely affected.

There was a time when the “News Room” was a non-profit center for the networks.  Once Ted Turner broke the code, the world of reporting changed forever.  Thus, you will be faced with an endless stream of negative (and often unsubstantiated) ads that are designed to shape your beliefs and control your voting behavior, but you will have to perform your own version of due diligence to learn about the solutions that independent candidates offer.

Returning briefly to the President’s recent energy speech, he said, “… the American people aren’t stupid.”  Yet, his Party (as well as the Republican Party) will spend millions of dollars on advertising gimmicks that suggest the exact opposite.

Consider the use of political billboards, bumper stickers, and lawn signs that will soon be visible everywhere.  While each of the candidates will profess to care about the environment, they will kill an entire forest to print these promotional pieces if it will help them get elected.

Think about it.  Billboards, bumper stickers, and lawn signs offer no substantive content and merely despoil the landscape.  Their only purpose is to impact the voting decisions of those Americans who will cast their vote based only on which candidate’s name they remember seeing the most.  The Parties are counting on the fact that some Americans are stupid.  It is an insult to our collective intelligence, but we allow it to continue.

If you have a particularly high threshold for absorbing insults, visit the candidates’ websites.  They have “stores” that will sell you bumper stickers, pins, tee shirts, baseball caps, mugs, and any autobiographies they have written about themselves.

The President has taken political marketing a step further by raffling off a chance to have dinner with him.  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, our political campaigns have degenerated to this level of disrespect for the Office of President of the United States.

This is where we are as a society – and it’s our fault.  We permitted the Parties to cheapen the Presidency and every other elected position they touch.  Perhaps, we are stupid.  I would prefer to think that we are just apathetic, and that has to change.

Are you disappointed by the choices you have among the Party candidates?  Have you heard others complain about the field?  Have you complained about it yourself?

The problem won’t fix itself.  You have to take a stand and do something.  You have to vote for the best candidate rather than the candidate a Party tells you is your only choice.  The line that “an independent candidate can’t win” or will just “split the vote” is a Party tactic designed to create a level of fear that forces you to vote for “the lesser of two evils.”  You do not have to sacrifice the Liberty to vote your conscience just because the Party would prefer you believe that to be true.

The Party candidates have already surrendered their ability to lead in return for their Party’s support.  In turn, the Party shapes each candidate into the image it wants.

The campaign teams hire image consultants and makeup artists to make their candidates fit the image the Party wants to project.  Have you ever seen so many potential “world leaders” in a pair of jeans and an open-collar shirt with the sleeves rolled up?  The scene begs you to believe the candidates are “just one of you,” they’re “in touch with the common man,” and they’ve got their sleeves rolled up because they’re “ready to get to work.”

Early in the process, a staff of pollsters is hired to collect data that is turned over to a team of political strategists.  The strategists determine what you want to hear (rather than what you need to hear) and how it can be positioned in the best interest of their candidate.  Then, they turn that information over to a group of professional speech writers, who create the sound bites and emotionally gripping passages that their candidate will read from a TelePrompTer.  If the candidate reads well, he or she will be praised as “a great orator.”

As I have often said, “The difference between a ‘Leader’ and a ‘Reader’ is more than a letter.”

In the end, the successful nominee will owe his or her Party.  Political access, appropriations, and appointments will be traded like currency.  The President’s position on issues will be tied to his or her Party’s platform, and the opposing Party will be vilified for anything that goes wrong (assuming that anything actually gets done).  Correspondingly, the President will surrender about 75 percent of the time that should be spent doing the People’s business in favor of traveling around the country at taxpayer expense to raise money for the Party, campaign on behalf of other Party candidates, and when applicable, run for re-election; all in an effort to continue the cycle of his or her Party’s dominance.

Over the next several weeks, I will detail how I have created an approach that is insulated from the influence of the Parties and their sources of money.  I will also begin to expose you to the approach I will take to solve our Nation’s problems.  I hope that you will read and share these articles with everyone you know. Whether the Party paradigm is allowed to continue will depend on the action you take.  I am running for the Office of the President of the United States to give you a choice.  It is up to you to determine whether you will take it.

__________

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.

es.

Read more

Mr. President: You’d sell 14,000 buildings; I’d use them

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., February 15, 2012 –  The House of Representatives passed H.R 1734 last week without much fanfare.  Its purpose was to reduce the “red tape” that has been inhibiting the President’s plan to dispose of about 14,000 Federal buildings that have been designated as “excess.”  For the purpose of this discussion, please do not ask how the Federal Government was able to amass 14,000 “excess” buildings; just accept the fact that this is indicative of their core competency.

To quote the White House:  “These properties range from sheds to underutilized office buildings and empty warehouses.  Many of these assets will be disposed through demolition and transfers.”

The expressed intent of this political solution was to eliminate the maintenance expense associated with the properties and to recapture equity in any properties that were sold rather than demolished. 

The President first announced his plan to address this “excess inventory” a little over a year ago.  He even proposed putting together a civilian board of experts to accelerate the process of liquidating the facilities.

A little more than a year later, the President’s new budget reintroduced his earlier proposal of creating a civilian board of experts.  Also, a little more than a year later, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1734 to try to overcome some obvious obstacles to the plan’s success.

In the Federal Government, this passes for progress.

Of course, there is some additional “red tape” to which the President and H.R. 1734 have been non-responsive.  It’s called the economy.

Let’s connect the dots.

The President’s plan calls for demolishing or selling 14,000 buildings to potentially eliminate $190 million in operating costs and recapture some equity.  On the surface, that sounds reasonable.

Doing turnarounds in the private sector taught me to look below the surface.  You learn how to ask questions.  For example:

Relative to Demolition

  • What are the criteria for determining which buildings qualify for demolition?
  • What are the associated EPA and other regulatory issues pertaining to the demolitions that might be waived for the Government (but that are not waived for the private sector)?
  • Who pays for the demolition?  (You already know the answer.)
  • What is the disposition or utilization strategy for the land that remains after demolition?

Relative to Sale

  • In today’s economy, are viable buildings likely to sell “high” or “low?”
  • How many buyers are interested in purchasing unoccupied buildings?
  • How many financial institutions would even consider financing the purchase of unoccupied properties?
  • If buyers require any additional economic incentives to close, who will absorb the cost?  (You already know the answer to that question as well.)

So, what are the alternatives?

What if the Federal Government redeployed those facilities that are operationally sound in a way that stimulated job growth and economic expansion?  Allow me to explain.

One of the few things to which the Parties seem to agree is that small business is the true economic engine of our country.  Having run small businesses, one of the challenges lies in finding affordable space within which to conduct business.

Since entrepreneurial start-ups particularly lack a “track record,” they are generally required to enter into secured leases.  This practice is designed to protect landlords from tenant defaults.  It also creates what I call a “non-performing asset” from the entrepreneur’s perspective.

Let’s say that a three-year lease will cost $1 million over the 36-month period.  The entrepreneur must place $1 million in an account to secure the lease.  Then, he or she must pay another $1 million over the term of the lease before the $1 million account is released and the money returned.

If the Federal Government were to redeploy its “excess inventory” of buildings to create rent-free entrepreneurial centers, an interesting thing would happen.

In the example above, the entrepreneur no longer has to pay $1 million in rent, nor does he or she have to leave another $1 million on the sidelines for three years.  As a result, $2 million dollars is freed to create jobs, invest in product development, and accelerate time to market.  Translated:  that means job growth and economic expansion.

The entrepreneurial enterprises would still have to pay for utilities and insurance on the property just as they would otherwise have to do.  This would insulate the Government from any additional operating costs as well as the risk of property loss, and all of this would transpire at no cost to the taxpayer.

Of course, there shouldn’t be a “free ride” forever.  So, the incubation period would be restricted to the earlier of five years or two consecutive years of profitability sufficient to offset the lease abatement.

Now, let’s assume that the Federal Government had a remaining inventory of suitable properties.  What could we do with those buildings?

We could offer them, under identical terms (other than the length of occupancy restriction), to charities that provide services that the Government might otherwise provide (many times without the Constitutional authority to do so).  This would allow the charities to more fully leverage their donations.

Under this scenario, there would be no need to use donations to make lease payments.  Instead, the money could be redirected to assist more people in need.  Over time, this would shift a higher percentage of social services to the private sector where they belong.

What else could be done with the Government’s “excess inventory” of buildings?

We could provide such buildings to community colleges and trade schools under the same terms and conditions as the charities receive.  The only qualification would be that the community colleges and trade schools would have to offer training programs that are tied to job-related opportunities in the community or across the Nation.

A collateral benefit of this approach is that it would help bring the training to the people rather than requiring the people to travel longer distances to secure the training.  That would not only conserve time, it would also conserve energy.

Additionally, studies suggest that there are approximately 3 million jobs that remain unfilled in the United States today because people lack the specific skills to perform them.  Consider the impact this program could have on our current level of unemployment.  Rather than trying to force the creation of jobs in politically preferred industries, it would provide a conduit of qualified personnel for existing positions in industries that don’t require subsidization.

Then, let’s take this latter scenario to another level.

Over the last three years, poverty in the United States has risen about three percent (from approximately 12% to 15%).  That means that one in every six or seven people you see is likely to be living at what is considered to be a poverty level in our country.

During that same period, unemployment rose from five percent to nearly ten before recently settling in the mid-eight percent range.

The political solution to these two problems has been to expand welfare and extend unemployment compensation.  Both of these solutions focus on maintaining a dependence upon government assistance among these groups and neither addresses the root cause of the problem.  While it may be politically expedient to create a nexus between certain groups of people and the Government in order to influence their voting behavior, it is morally indefensible.

We should be focused on creating opportunities for these people to escape from the cycle of dependence rather than fostering an environment that thwarts their initiative and lowers their self-esteem.  The Clinton Administration had made progress in this regard, but those gains were wasted by the Bush Administration, and they have been further eroded by the Obama Administration.

The training program initiative offers a chance to move in a more positive direction.  Those programs, housed rent-free in the Government’s “excess inventory” of buildings, could be further leveraged with regard to those who are currently dependent upon public assistance or entitlement programs.

Rather than further extending unemployment payments, the Government could use those same funds, up front, to provide relevant training to those who are unemployed so that they may gain new skills that are in demand.  This would provide:  (1) a higher likelihood of near-term job placement (moving the individuals from the category of “unemployed” to the status of “employed” more quickly); (2) an associated increase in the tax base (rather than fostering a tax drain); (3) a higher probability of long-term employment; and (4) the ability to fill the job-skills void that currently exists in the marketplace and increase GDP.

The same could be done with regard to those who become dependent upon Government assistance outside of the scenario of typical unemployment.  Anyone of able mind and body who is receiving public assistance should either contribute some level of service to the Government (i.e., to convert the assistance to earned compensation), or they should be required to attend one of the training programs to acquire a more functional skill-set.

Both of these alternatives would restore a sense of pride and accomplishment that could be built upon to create a better life.

Neither of these solutions would require additional taxpayer funds.  In fact, both solutions would contribute to lessening the tax burden over time as the affected individuals would become contributors to the tax base rather than continuing to be a tax liability.

So, let’s compare solutions.

The President’s solution would:  (1) sell taxpayer-owned buildings while the market is down for a one-time gain and the elimination of operating costs; (2) do nothing to directly contribute to job growth and economic expansion; and (3) continue to expand unemployment and Government assistance programs at taxpayer expense.

My solution would:  (1) retain the assets (i.e., the taxpayer-owned buildings); (2) eliminate the operating costs; (3) allow us to continue to benefit from the entrepreneurial centers, the charitable organizations, and the training institutes over time; (4) stimulate job growth and economic expansion; (5) replace some Government services through the good works of private sector charities; (6) make progress toward breaking the cycle of dependence upon Government assistance and unemployment compensation; and (7) create a workforce that is more effectively aligned existing market needs.  In addition, if we ever chose to sell some of the buildings, we could do it after the real estate market had recovered.

I like my solution better.  Which one do you prefer?

In the interest of full disclosure, there’s something you need to know.  I’m not a Party politician, and I’ve never organized a community.  I’ve just spent 25+ years doing turnarounds in the private sector.

That often required working with companies that were deeply in debt, were out of ideas, and were suffering from severe organizational disruption.  I had to pull the team together and help it define the company’s problems, identify the root causes, evaluate the alternatives, and build a consensus around the best solutions so we could implement them as flawlessly as possible.  I didn’t have a year to put a committee together, and I didn’t have any time to waste blaming my predecessor.  Let me know if any other situation comes to mind in which my skills might be valuable.

__________

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.

Read more

Democrats and Republicans beware: A President for the People

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., February 7, 2012 – Today, more than ever, America needs independent leadership.  The “hope” of bipartisan accord we were promised in 2008 has disintegrated into a politically accusatory environment that has earned Congress the lowest “favorability” rating of all time, and the President isn’t far behind.  The only thing upon which the Democrats and Republicans seem to agree is that our Nation’s current challenges are the fault of the other Party.

It is time to fix the problems rather than the blame.  That is why I am running as an independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States.

Will it be easy?  No.  Have the Parties spent the past 200+ years trying to build barriers designed to preclude anyone from challenging their power base?  Yes.  Should you accept that constraint?  I am presenting you with the opportunity to decide.

The Constitution empowers you to participate in the determination of who serves in our representative form of Government.   You are not restricted to the candidates that the Parties proffer.

There is a place for partisan argument.  It resides within the Legislative Branch of our Government under Article I.  The bicameral chambers are structured to elicit differing opinions that can be debated civilly (although the latter concept appears to be a lost art).

The idea is that a presentation and discussion of the facts within the House and the Senate will lead to a rational assessment of the alternatives. Unfortunately, the Parties have become so profoundly focused on maintaining and expanding their political power that they have become blind to their responsibility to protect the best interests of the People.

Our Founding Fathers tried to protect against that inevitability by crafting a more autonomous branch of Government under Article II:  the Executive Branch.  The expectation was that the President would exercise the power of veto to temper any undue partisanship in the event that Party politics began to inappropriately influence the direction of legislation.  In turn, the power of veto was designed to be overridden by Congress in the event that it was abused, but to do so would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (a hurdle of appropriately significant magnitude).

Regrettably, the Presidency has evolved into more of a champion for a particular Party than a check-and-balance against legislative fiat.  It has transformed into a position that serves more to secure the power of the Parties than the “blessings of Liberty” for the People.

After serving over 25 years as a senior executive and consultant in the private sector (predominantly directing turnarounds), I dedicated the past three years to the study of our Nation’s political system.  In that time, I wrote and spoke extensively on the subject and authored three books.

Ultimately, I focused on the Party paradigm that has been strangling our country.  It became apparent that the solution had to reside outside of the Parties.  We needed a leader who would retain the ability to exercise independent judgment.

Think about that.  In our current political environment, potential candidates have accepted the belief that they have to represent a Party to wage a successful campaign.  The cash and infrastructure requirements are otherwise prohibitive.  Then, ask yourself two questions:  Who created that paradigm and why?

The answer is obvious.  The Parties are the only entities that benefit from constraining choice.  They work to “preserve, protect and defend” their base of power rather than the Constitution.  The fact that they have to sell “influence” in order to maintain the system they have created is irrelevant.  It’s a Machiavellian model at its finest.

The result is devastating.

Since Presidential campaigns are at the extreme end of the cost curve, Party candidates essentially are owned by their Parties.  If they are elected, their decisions are significantly prejudiced by their Party’s leadership and platform.  As a result, we see over 80 percent of the senior White House appointments and nearly 50 percent of the Ambassadorships going to individuals who bundled $500,000 or more for the President; and we are asked to believe that it’s just a coincidence.

Ultimately, the President is expected to pay what the Party owes.  Effectively, the “Leader of the Free World” forfeits his or her Liberty to Lead, and that is untenable.

Presidents too often have become the political marionettes of their Party.  For example:  they are traditionally used to attract money and attention to feed their Party’s insatiable appetite for power.  Presidents draw crowds; crowds translate into donations; donations are used to create marketing campaigns that are designed to shape political beliefs; and political beliefs drive voter behavior.  You just have to connect the dots.

Think about a modern-day President’s schedule.  He or she is obligated to fly around the country, at taxpayer expense, to fund-raise on behalf of the Party; to campaign on behalf of other Party candidates (whom the President often doesn’t know); and to campaign for his or her own re-election.  This is done at a cost of over $181,000 an hour to operate Air Force One; not to mention the cost of Secret Service protection and the multiple floors of Five-Star hotels that have to be closed to accommodate most of our recent Presidents’ lodging preferences.

It is important to note that none of these activities has anything to do with the business of the People.  The question becomes:  What would happen if we had a full-time President?

You now have the opportunity to discover the answer.

As an independent candidate, I am not indebted to a Party.  That means I can actually focus on serving our Nation rather than a political Party.

I am insulated from having to fund-raise for anyone.  I am not required to champion the candidacies of others and, quite frankly, if they can’t stand on their own accord, they do not warrant my support.

Additionally, I will commit not to run for re-election.  That does not mean that I would not serve a second term if it was the will of the People.  It simply means that I will not waste time raising money and campaigning for a second term.

The reality is that I will be the only candidate, at that moment in time, who has a record upon which to be judged.  If my performance merits a second term, I would be honored to serve.

I think that it’s absurd for an incumbent to raise and spend nearly $1 billion to get re-elected.  That amount of money would support 22,000 median-income households, 65,000 individuals receiving unemployment, or 87,000 people at the poverty level for an entire year.  If that perspective costs me a second term, so be it.

I also have the ability to exercise independent judgment. Compare that to the position of a Party President.

A Party President is under enormous pressure to comply with the Party’s platform (again, to protect the Party’s base).  That means that he or she is inclined to define problems, identify root causes, and evaluate alternatives that are in alignment with the Party’s position.  It also means that the President effectively only considers half of the solutions.  In my opinion, this is tantamount to a breach of fiduciary duty.

The telltale sign of this violation of public trust is when a President begins to blame the opposing Party for virtually everything.  Rhetoric that decries a Republican (or Democrat) House or Senate, and ignores the reality that both Parties are represented and charged with the responsibility to reach a consensus.

This tactic is also used to distract attention from the fact that there is culpability on both sides.  To reiterate my earlier statement:  It’s time to fix the problem rather than the blame.

In my turnaround experience in the private sector, there wasn’t any value in assessing blame.  We needed to solve the problem, and that’s where we concentrated our time and energy.  Additionally, no one really cared who offered the best solutions.  We only cared that we identified them and executed them as effectively as possible.

You might have noticed that I used the pronoun “we.”  It is a particularly important pronoun with respect to leadership.  It is also a particularly important pronoun with respect to our country.

The Constitution begins with the words “We the People.”  It doesn’t begin with the words “We the Democrats”… or “We the Republicans”… or “We the Liberals”… or “We the Conservatives.”  It doesn’t distinguish between sexes, races, religions, sexual orientations, or any other categories the Parties use to divide rather than unite our country.  It begins, “We the People,” and it’s time we elected someone who recognizes that distinction.

We live in a world in which the Presidency is for sale, and in our society, it usually goes to the highest bidder.  Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

When the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were concluded, an entry in Benjamin Franklin’s diary states that a certain Mrs. Powel asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?”  Without hesitation, he answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.”  How prophetic was his answer?

We were given a Republic.  Only you can decide if we can keep it.

Let’s work together.  It’s time to return America to the People.

__________

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.

Read more

Will President Obama say: Read my lips – No new jobs?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., September 1, 2011 – President Franklin D. Roosevelt was challenged by The Great Depression and a little thing called World War II.  In 1945, his Administration suffered the ignominy of a month with zero job growth.  Unfortunately for him, President George W. Bush had yet to be born.  Today, for the first time since that difficult time, the Obama Administration can claim the same crowning achievement:  no net job growth.

Three years ago, we began to experience an economic downturn that evolved into a full-blown recession.  Senators Obama and McCain were vying for the Office of President of the United States.

Senator McCain was tied to the Bush Administration and mocked with the chant of “Senator McCain … More of the Same.”  Senator Obama was distinguished by the can-do attitude of “Yes We Can” and the offer of “Change We Can Believe In.”  On the basis of hope, Senator Obama was elected President of the United States.

Neither candidate entered into the general election without knowledge of the emerging economic crisis.  While in the Senate, both had voted on issues that affected and, in some cases, contributed to it.

Of course, it was politically expedient for the winner to blame one individual for the entire meltdown.  Forget Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; forget Acorn’s bank protests; forget Wall Street’s insatiable greed … as President Nixon poignantly learned:  when you’re at the top of the political world, they will always have you to “kick around.”

Now, we come to President Obama in his desperate attempt to remain relevant as a leader.  He has had three years to address the United States’ economic woes.  He has had three years to protect its credit rating.  He has had three years to provide the leadership that would rebuild our Nation’s confidence and reestablish its fiscal stability.  He has had three years to deliver speeches that promised a solution.

And today … for the first time since 1945 … we have experienced a month during which we achieved ZERO net job growth.

The President’s challenge resides in the fact that most people realize that the economy over which he presides is now his economy.  While some individuals will cling to the mantra that it’s President Bush’s fault, that excuse is beginning to wear thin on those of us who must live in the present.

Of course, the new scapegoat is Congress.  Well, not all of Congress (“wink, wink”) … just the part of Congress that hasn’t agreed with the President’s heretofore undocumented plan for recovery.  Some things you just have to take on faith … unless we’re talking about religion.  Then, you need proof!

Luckily, the economic dilemma will be resolved no later than Thursday when the President delivers his “jobs plan” to a Joint Session of Congress.  It will undoubtedly be filled with detailed action items that can be implemented immediately and others that will contribute to continuous improvement over time.

It should be good!  It’s been three years in the making.

Unlike other speeches that may have reflected nothing more than the input of pollsters, political strategists, and the staff of writers that support President Obama, this one will almost certainly be stamped with the President’s personal imprimatur.  Who can doubt the amount of time he must have spent refining the strategies that he will be delivering during his nationally televised speech?  In between his bus tour, golf games, and the quality time he was spending with his family in Martha’s Vineyard, he was indubitably immersed in reviewing alternatives, testing assumptions, and selecting a final course of action.

Putting aside the political games associated with jockeying for primetime exposure (which resembled what you might expect from an impassioned race for Student Council President in junior high), those of us who are not watching the NFL’s pre-game show on September 8th should be treated to the following:

  • The President will connect with “the People” by demonstrating his recognition of the hardships they face (the plight of the “middle class” will be duly noted);
  • The President will tell us that “we have been making progress” to correct the problem “that we inherited” … but “not as fast as we would like;”
  • The President will call for a “balanced approach;”
  • The President will call for an elimination of “wasteful spending;”
  • The President will call for an increase of revenue in the form of “eliminating loopholes for private jet owners and oil companies” and increasing taxes on “millionaires and billionaires” so that they’ll “pay their fair share;”
  • The President will put the burden squarely on Congress and indirectly suggest that its failure to pass any associated legislation will be tantamount to treason (the phrase “It’s time for certain people to put country over Party” will almost certainly be used); and, if he’s not careful,
  • The President might even allude to a few actionable ideas.

In response:

  • The Republican guard (no reference to Saddam Hussein intended) will undoubtedly react negatively and reject anything that doesn’t relate to cutting expenses;
  • Governor Rick Perry will give dozens of interviews reminding everyone of how he created hundreds of thousands of low-paying jobs in a State that doesn’t have any income tax;
  • Representative Michelle Bachmann will wave her hand frantically trying to get someone to interview her (we can only hope that God will assist her in that regard);
  • Former Governor Mitt Romney will talk about the thousands of jobs he personally created while simultaneously calling for the repeal of Obamacare;
  • Representative Ron Paul will look a bit disheveled and appear to be frustrated;
  • Former Speaker, Newt Gingrich will be shopping with his wife and unavailable for comment; and
  • Former Governor Palin will ask if anyone knows where she can get a big bus just like the President’s.

In the meantime, we will continue to experience unemployment in excess of 9 percent while pundits debate whether we are entering into a double-dip recession.  Quite frankly, other than from a definitional perspective, who cares?  To the 14+ million people who are unemployed and the additional 5-to-10 million people who have given up looking for a job and are no longer “counted,” it doesn’t matter how you brand our current situation.

Unfortunately, for the politicians, it’s all about branding … personal branding.  Armed with inflammatory rhetoric or positioning themselves as arrogantly above the fray (i.e., as being the only adult in the room), our traditional politicians share a common denominator:  they generally do not offer any definitive solutions.  If they did, their solutions would be subject to public scrutiny and would likely fall short.

That is why we rarely hear traditional politicians discuss anything with specificity.  It’s just too threatening to their campaigns.  You see, they could actually be held accountable.

As for Thursday night, you’re probably better off watching the game.  (Rumor has it that Tea Party members will invariably favor the Saints.)

The real news is that the Packers and Saints will actually have game plans.  They will call plays and try to execute them with precision.  The players will cooperate with their teammates in an effort to achieve a positive outcome.  Fans will actually pay attention to what is happening, and at the end of the game, they will know who won and have every statistic known to mankind to evaluate the reason for the outcome.  It’s just too bad that we can’t say the same for our “team” in Washington, D.C.

__________

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, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Obama and Immelt bring jobs and competitiveness to life

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 24, 2011 – During his State of the Union Address this year, President Obama said, “We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world … At stake is whether new jobs and industries take root in this country, or somewhere else.”  No one can disagree with the President on this point.

Prior to the SOTU, President Obama reached out to “big business” to help him address this issue.  Since his Party normally eschews anything to do with “big business” (other than when it comes to soliciting campaign donations), he must have swallowed deeply before asking General Electric’s Chairman and CEO, Jeffrey Immelt, to become the Chairperson of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.

After all, GE is the epitome of “big business” in the annals of American history.  It was a company that, at one point, had fallen upon hard times.  Then, Neutron Jack Welsh came on board to craft the second phase of the company’s history; a phase during which GE regained its position of market dominance.

GE set the bar for corporate performance.  The company’s Six Sigma programs, its internal dictate of being number one or two in every targeted market, and its other signature strategies became the standards to which other businesses aspired.  Even its slogan, “GE … We bring good things to life,” was woven deeply into the fabric of America as if it were a thread in our flag.

Then, Mr. Immelt took the reins from the venerable Mr. Welch in 2001, and a third phase of the company’s history was born; a third Reich if you will.

Mr. Immelt quickly distinguished himself.  By 2008, he enjoyed the unique status of having been honored as one of Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People in the World” while also being named one of the five worst “Non-Financial-Crisis-Related CEOs of 2008” by another organization.

For a period of time, he was also regularly pummeled by Fox News Commentator, Bill O’Reilly, for doing business with the Iranian regime.  But who could blame Mr. Immelt?  There were profits to be made, and that’s what “big business” does!

By 2009, either the President’s stated aversion to “big business” had subsided or, ever the consummate diplomat, he felt inclined to reach out to the dark side with an olive branch.  Then again, perhaps it was just Mr. Immelt’s demonstrated willingness to work with factions in the Middle East.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Immelt bonded with President Obama and became a mentor of sorts.  Given the dearth of business experience among the President’s staff, Mr. Immelt must have appeared to be a veritable sage.  As a result, he was appointed to the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

As its name suggests, the Economic Recovery Advisory Board was tasked with providing the President with advice and counsel relative to our Nation’s economic recovery.  There’s a Latin phrase that’s used in the law:  res ipsa loquitor … which translates to “the thing speaks for itself.”  That seems like an applicable theory to apply to the effectiveness of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board.

With the economic crisis apparently behind us, President Obama signed an Executive Order that created the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.  Who else could he appoint as its Chairperson other than Mr. Immelt?

To quote the President, “Our job is to do everything we can to ensure that businesses can take root and folks can find good jobs and America is leading the global competition that will determine our success in the 21st century.” 

The White House website provides: 

“The President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness (Jobs Council) was created to provide non-partisan advice to the President on continuing to strengthen the Nation’s economy and ensure the competitiveness of the United States and on ways to create jobs, opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.

“The Jobs Council is made up of members appointed by the President from among distinguished citizens outside the Federal Government, including citizens chosen to serve as representatives of the various sectors of the economy to offer the diverse perspectives of the private sector, employers, and workers on how the Federal Government can best foster growth, competitiveness, innovation, and job creation.”

That sounds good!  Is Mr. Immelt up to the task?  Of course, he is!

Last year, GE reported worldwide profits of $14.2 billion.  Clearly, Mr. Immelt knows how to create jobs and compete!

But wait!  Only $5.1 billion of the total came from GE’s U.S. operations.  How can that be?

It’s because GE has been “exporting” jobs in recent years.  It has reduced its U.S. base of business by approximately 21,000 employees and now employs about 53% of its workforce overseas.

Who cares … as long as it pays taxes?  That is … if it did pay taxes.  You see, under Mr. Immelt’s guidance, GE has become very proficient at exploiting the tax code.  The company not only didn’t pay any taxes last year on its $14.2 billion profit, it actually claimed a tax benefit of $3.2 billion.  Isn’t America great?

At least, we can hope that Mr. Immelt paid personal income taxes on the $14+ million he earned in his capacity as Chairman and CEO of GE while flying around in his corporate jet.

And speaking of jets, the Chairman of the President’s Council on Jobs and Competitiveness made another big announcement around the time the President appointed him.  Mr. Immelt revealed that GE will be participating in the development of jet aircraft that will create jobs and improve competitiveness.  The business opportunity is also projected to result in about $400 billion in additional revenue for the company over the next 20 years.

Just imagine the benefit that our Nation would derive from the deal if GE had to pay taxes on those revenues!

Just imagine the benefit that our Nation would derive from the deal if the jobs were actually in the United States!

Just imagine the benefit that our Nation would derive from the deal if the jobs were in China enriching that nation’s ability to compete with U.S. firms like Boeing!

You remember Boeing.  It’s the company that is being sued by the National Labor Relations Board over its attempt to open a new manufacturing plant in South Carolina that would create 1,000+ new jobs.  Luckily, the NLRB intervened; the same NLRB whose composition was greatly impacted by the President’s pro-labor appointments that were made while Congress was in recess.

The NLRB saw through Boeing’s heinous and lightly-veiled attempt to crush the union at its facility in the State of Washington.  Lots of taxpayer dollars will be spent to ensure that Boeing doesn’t get away with it.  As a result, over 1,000 people will be denied jobs in South Carolina because, otherwise, they would have the freedom to determine whether they wanted to be represented by a union … and if there’s one thing we can’t have in this country, it’s freedom of choice!

In the interim, production of Boeing’s state-of-the-art 787 Dreamliner is on hold.  But don’t worry!  GE will be sharing its most sophisticated electronic systems, many of which would otherwise have been included in the 787 Dreamliner, with its Chinese partner … creating jobs for the Chinese … and making them more competitive with Boeing, a U.S. company that employs American workers in the States when it’s permitted to do so.

Are you connecting the dots yet?  We’re denying jobs in South Carolina while creating them in China.  We’re generating revenue in China and for GE, but not taxing GE on those profits in the United States.  We’re making China more competitive in the long term and exposing Boeing’s U.S.-based manufacturing to more competition in the future.

What government agency is going to protect the union jobs that are being lost by this fiasco?  There isn’t a field office of the NLRB in China to the best of my knowledge.

And speaking of competition, let’s not stop with Boeing.  How about the competition that exists between those non-private sector entities:  the United States Air Force and the Chinese Air Force?

You see, the advanced technology that GE will be sharing with its partner in China could accelerate China’s ability to close the technological gap between its Air Force and ours.  Did I mention that Avic, GE’s partner in this endeavor, also supplies China’s military aircraft and weapons systems?

Luckily, China’s never demonstrated the ability to copy our technology if you don’t count its recent demonstration of a Stealth fighter.  Besides, if GE didn’t share our technology, Pakistan probably would.

To its credit, GE has briefed the Department of Defense, the State Department, and the Department of Commerce.  Stringent rules have been put in place by bureaucrats to preclude any threat to our country (outside of the economic havoc the deal could wreak).  Specifically, the joint venture will have to establish offices that are separate from Avic’s military development operations; the JV’s computer systems can’t pass data to Avic’s military development operations; and the JV’s employees must wait two years before they can transfer to the military side of Avic’s operations.

Here’s another suggested measure:  let’s all keep our fingers crossed and pray.

Lest you think that I’m picking on GE, I’m not.  Other American companies have also given in to the temptation of money … just not to the same degree as GE.

This isn’t to suggest that the President’s selection of Mr. Immelt as Chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness might indicate a lapse of judgment on the President’s part.  It doesn’t.

Do you remember how the President saved the United States automobile industry and how he redirected its production to more energy-efficient cars like the $40,000 Volt with a range of 35 miles?  Well, General Motors sold a whooping 125 Volts in July of this year … and that includes the taxpayer-financed $7,500 rebate.

However, fear not!  For the mighty Mr. Immelt has stepped up to the plate to order about 12,000 Volts for GE.  Ignoring the $90 million in rebates GE will receive, this is a generous act that will help our country create jobs and add to its competitiveness.

Mr. Immelt said, “Electric vehicle technology is real and ready for deployment and we are embracing the transformation with partners like GM and our fleet customers … By electrifying our own fleet, we will accelerate the adoption curve, drive scale, and move electric vehicles from anticipation to action.”  Finally, the Chairman of the President’s Council is “giving back” to America.

Then again, it could be because GE builds charging stations and a wide variety of components that are tied to the infrastructure that will be required to support the electric vehicle market.  It also owns one of the world’s largest fleets and runs a huge fleet management business.  The investment is estimated to potentially be worth $500 million in revenue to GE over the next 3-5 years.

On the positive side, it could provide the President with the opportunity to take a few more victory laps for saving GM and creating the electric car that consumers were demanding; even if the only real consumer was his good, rich, big business friend, Mr. Immelt.

In the final analysis, I’m inspired by the old GE slogan:  “GE … We bring good things to life.”  Perhaps mine should be:  “The Common Sense Czar … He brings us back to reality.”  In the interim, may you find a job in the United States in an industry in which we are still competitive.  Either that or may you become fluent in Chinese.

__________

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, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

Read more