testsite_tjohara – Page 13

Pawlenty Quits – Why the Rest of the Candidates Should Too!

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 15, 2011 – Former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty demonstrated the kind of leadership that this country needs. He quit! Why can’t more presidential candidates follow his lead? In fact, why don’t they all follow his lead … for the good of the country?

Former Gov. Pawlenty was the perfect candidate. He is a likable guy, and he ineffectively spent an enormous sum of money on his Iowa Straw Poll campaign that garnered only 2,293 votes. Rumor has it that he spent in the range of $1.5 million. That’s just under $655 per vote. Given that ratio, he’d only need about a $42 billion war chest to capture a narrow victory in 2012.

Okay, maybe he was correct in his decision to drop out.

However, mathematics never was the strong suit of political candidates. So, it’s tough to come down too hard on former Gov. Pawlenty and suggest that only he should have stepped down.

Fox News broadcast its own version of reality television last week when it hosted what passed for a Republican Political Debate. It was within the context of that debate that stimulated the thought that perhaps all of the Republican candidates should withdraw from the Presidential Race.

Bret Baier asked the following question:

“Well, I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage. Say you had a deal … a real spendings (sic) cuts deal, ten to one as Byron (York) said (in a previous question) spendings (sic) cuts to tax increases. Mr. Speaker (Gingrich), you’re already shaking your head. But who on this stage would walk away from that deal? Will you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes you’d walk away on the ten-to-one deal?”

All of the presidential candidates on the stage, former Gov. Rick Santorum, Mr. Herman Cain, Rep. Ron Paul, former Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Gov. Jon Huntsman, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, raised their hands; although, in fairness, Mr. Cain seemed to be initially reluctant.

Perhaps, Mr. Cain’s reluctance was predicated upon the fact that he doesn’t sport a prior or existing government title. So, there’s a chance he has some common sense and can actually “do the math.” Unfortunately, he may have been a victim of peer pressure with respect to this question, but he caved just the same.

Just for fun, let’s do the math. A 10:1 spending cut to tax increase deal would work like this. Doing a little algebra (assuming it’s still taught in our public schools), let’s make X equal to the tax increase. Therefore, the spending cuts have to equal 10X. If we want to wipe out the entire $14.5 trillion in debt, the equation would be 11X equals $14.5 trillion. Solving for X, we’d be accepting a tax increase of $1.319 trillion in return for a spending cut of $13.19 trillion. The result: the complete elimination of our National Debt (which is really not even remotely required) and a return of our AAA rating and happy days for everyone!

Can we really achieve this type of cost reduction immediately? No! However, that wasn’t Mr. Baier’s question. The question was essentially whether the candidates would even consider it.

President Obama even mentioned the 10:1 deal at his town hall-type meeting in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, on Monday. In reference to the Republican candidates’ rejection of the theoretical deal and an apparent endorsement of this column, the President said, “Think about that. I mean, that’s just not common sense.”

Think about it indeed! It would be a sweetheart of a deal if it were spread over a relatively short period of time (say, five years). The reality is that marginal tax rates might not even have to be increased given the loopholes that could be eliminated in the 72,000+ pages of the tax code if the loopholes were to be considered first. In the alternative, even if increases in the tax rates were required, they wouldn’t need to be permanent since the National Debt would have been so radically reduced.

Why would all of the Republican candidates summarily reject the idea? Why would any rational candidate reject it completely? Then again, perhaps that explains it.

The raising of hands was little more than a symbolic expression of “solidarity” designed to assuage those strident supporters who demand form over substance. As a result, we should ask all of the Republican candidates to drop out of the Presidential Race. Given the likelihood that Gov. Rick Perry would have raised his hand as well, let’s just save time and ask him to drop out as well.

Moving right along, it’s time to address the Democratic side of the coin.

While fringe elements of the Democratic Party might float a primary challenger to President Obama, the Party itself will continue to “dance with the date that brought them to the Prom” as the saying goes. That’s too bad!

If the Democratic Party really cared about America’s middle class, it would run someone who could demonstrate at least a modicum of empathy for those people … without the assistance of a TelePrompTer.

This is a President who either didn’t have the leadership skills or the financial acumen to understand the necessity of addressing the issue of our National Debt before it became a true crisis. His proposed budget was shot down by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate, and he was missing in action relative to the debt ceiling debate until it was entirely too late. The fact that his specific personal recommendations could best be represented by a blank piece of paper speaks volumes.

Now that the President has chosen to pass the buck to a “super committee” (which former Speaker Newt Gingrich accurately described as “the dumbest idea Washington has come up with in my lifetime”), his leadership choices have been interesting. The President has played golf, gone on a 10-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, and now is traveling around the country on a bus tour to talk about his economic successes … seriously!

Press Secretary Carney came to the President’s defense last week when reporters challenged the President’s course of action particularly with respect to his decision to go on vacation. “I don’t think Americans out there would begrudge that (sic) notion that the President would spend some time with his family,” Press Secretary Carney said.

Of course, Press Secretary Carney is correct … because the President is in a class by himself.

Do you remember that little oil spill we experienced in the Gulf of Mexico last year? The White House excoriated British Petroleum’s then-CEO, Tony Hayward, for having gone to a yacht race with his son. Then-Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel called Mr. Hayward’s choice “part of a long line of PR gaffes and mistakes.”

During that same time in which our Nation was suffering from the disaster in the Gulf, President Obama was criticized for his concurrent decision to, once again, play golf.

Deputy Press Secretary, Bill Burton, said that the President had a right to decompress a bit after a hard week. “I don’t think that there’s a person in this country that doesn’t think that their President ought to have a little time to clear his mind … I think that a little time to himself on Father’s Day weekend probably does us all good as American citizens,” Burton explained.

When the President decides to recreate, it’s apparently in all of our best interests. When other leaders do it, it’s patently wrong. Welcome to the new caste system … just when you thought we no longer were ruled by the equivalent of a monarchy.

That’s why President Obama should declare that he is dropping out of the 2012 Presidential Race. He wouldn’t have to waste any more time on campaign junkets such as his current bus tour, and his staff wouldn’t have to struggle to frame such political boondoggles as actually being related to the Nation’s business. The President could just concentrate on doing his job until the end of his term. Then, he could use all of his time going forward to “clear his mind.”

If everyone would just drop out of the Presidential Race, maybe a new breed of candidate would arise who cares more about the country than he or she does about the grandeur of the position. Maybe someone with common sense and an uncommon commitment to the People would rise from the economic ashes to rebuild America and return our Nation to a period of true exceptionalism. At least, we can dream.

__________

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.

Will the Super Committee save the day on debt?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 11, 2011 – Holy smoke, Batman, there’s a new summer blockbuster coming to a theater near you: Legion of the Super Committee! You can almost see the trailer. Cue the superhero theme … and “Action! “While the country teetered on the brink of economic disaster, 12 brave citizens stepped forth to put Party politics aside to restore truth, justice and the American way.” Let’s hope that it reflects reality rather than fiction … particularly with regard to “putting Party politics aside.”

The “Terrific Twelve” are now in place.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid took action first (which is a story in itself). He selected Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who was named as co-chair, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rounded out the Senate’s members by adding Senators John Kyl (R-AZ), Rob Portman (R-OH), and Pat Toomey (R-PA) to the committee.

Then, Speaker of the House John Boehner named Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) as co-chair, along with Rep. David Camp (R-MI) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put the finishing touches on the committee by choosing Representatives Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Xavier Becerra (D-CA), and Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D-MD) to represent interests.

Together, they form the august (no pun intended) Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

The “super committee,” as it’s called, is tasked with a super challenge: to go where no politician has gone before … at least in recent years; i.e., to act in the best interests of the People in a demonstration of common sense and bipartisan accord.

The baseline goal of the super committee is relatively simple: find a minimum of $1.5 trillion in additional budgetary savings that can be claimed over the next 10 years. That would be added to the $2.1 trillion that was identified in the interim plan entered into on August 2nd to raise the total to $3.6 trillion.

Keep in mind that the credit rating agencies warned the United States that a possible downgrade might occur if a “meaningful” debt resolution wasn’t met, and by “meaningful,” they stated that a debt reduction plan in the range of $4+ trillion would be required.

For those of you who took math when it was still being taught in our public schools, you undoubtedly recognize that $3.6 trillion is less than $4 trillion. Do not be alarmed! The United States’ crediting rating will remain AAA. When the Administration was queried about the possibility of a downgrade, no less of an authority than our own Secretary of Treasury, Timothy “TurboTax” Geithner, pronounced that there is “No risk of that.” Oops!

Luckily, on the third day of the downgrade, the President arose from the Fed. He told us, “Markets will rise and fall, but this is the United States of America. No matter what some agency may say, we’ve always been and always will be a AAA country.” Having been reassured by the President’s version of “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” you can just ignore any impact you may experience as a result of the downgrade. It’s all good!

Following the President’s words of encouragement, the stock market went into a meltdown … much like Al Gore. Come to think of it, maybe the economic meltdown is really being caused by global warming.

Of course, there’s a better answer than that. Senator Kerry clarified the situation. “I believe this is, without question, the Tea Party downgrade,” he said. “This is the Tea Party downgrade because a minority of people in the House of Representatives countered the will of even many Republicans in the United States Senate who were prepared to do a bigger deal, to do $4.7 trillion dollars, $4 trillion dollars, have a mix of reductions and reforms in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, but also recognize that we needed to do some revenue.”

Senator Kerry went on to say, “What we need is a Washington that stops this bickering. Let’s get rid of these hard positions that I noticed even in Speaker Boehner’s comments about the downgrade, politicizing it in a sense, sort of blaming it on the Democrats and the lack of the decisions … Barack Obama put a $4.7 trillion deal on the table. Three times he was refused that deal (which almost sounds biblical) because there were some people in the Republican Party, and Mitch McConnell even admitted this, who wanted to default. He said there were some people in his Party who were willing to shoot the hostage. In the end, they found out that the hostage was worth ransoming.”

This is obviously a demonstration of President Obama’s January plea for more political civility in the aftermath of Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting, during which he said, “Only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation … Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

It all bodes well for the bipartisan accord element of the super committee’s objective. Speaking of which, some of the super committee selections were interesting.

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), one of the co-chairs of the super committee, is the second-ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee and a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, which is a good background. She also happens to be chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in which her role is to make sure that the Democrats retain control of the Senate in 2012.

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) also has a good background as he sits on the Committee on Finance and is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight as well as sitting on the Subcommittees on Health Care and Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy (among others). However, he is viewed as the 4th most conservative Republican and is most famous for having claimed that abortion is “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does” (when the figure is closer to 3%). Later, he explained that his comment was “not intended to be a factual statement.” On the plus side, he’s retiring in 2013.

There are other members of the super committee whose political biases and faux pas are equally troublesome, but there is no need to bore you with the details.

However, let’s focus on the positive. Most of the members sit on appropriate committees and subcommittees that expose them to the tax code and budgetary process. While it may appear to be a leap of faith given the Hill’s most recent history, let’s pray that the members of the super committee will embrace the fact that their responsibility to the People surpasses their commitment to their respective Parties.

In the world of turnarounds, this really isn’t a particularly challenging problem. The entity (in this case the United States) has created an infrastructure that cannot be presently supported by its revenue stream.

Step #1: Reduce costs. Eliminate any non-essential programs, personnel, etc. that threaten the long-term viability of the government. Look internally first because it’s the area you can most readily control.

Step #2: Restructure necessary elements to operate more cost-effectively and efficiently. Eliminate redundancies, automate systems, reduce bureaucratic policies and procedures that slow down decision-making (particularly as it pertains to those “not so shovel-ready” jobs that the President admitted were delayed by needless levels of approval), etc.

Step #3: Consider strategies that will increase revenue. Republicans and members of the TEA Party, this means that you shouldn’t ignore the possibility of exploring strategies that will improve cash flow in a manner that will allow you to reduce debt. Democrats, this means that any associated revenues should be used to reduce debt rather than to fund new social programs that will otherwise expand it.

Unlike private sector businesses that have to earn revenue, the government has the power to ordain it. With that power goes much responsibility. If you truly believe that “all men are created equal,” now is the time to recognize that it is wrong to place the burden of the debt, which you as our elected officials created, on the backs of the middle class … or on the backs of the wealthy. This is an opportunity to revise the tax code in a meaningful way that allows all Americans to share in the cost of freedom to the degree that they can. It is an opportunity to bring Americans together rather than to further tear them apart.

Sure, you’ll have to eliminate the loopholes you have created to curry political favor but recognize that your responsibility is to the People … not to feather your own nest or that of your Party.

If you take this step seriously, you may actually find that everyone could experience a rate reduction on a percentage basis. The rhetoric about the inequity of “hedge fund managers paying a lower percentage than their secretaries” will go away if you eliminate tax loopholes that were created to attract campaign contributions and political support.

The original tax code was 400 pages. Today’s code tips the scales in excess of 72,000 pages. To put that into perspective, the Constitution of the United States of America, which forms the basis of the entire federal government, is six pages (including a page for its Letter of Transmittal and one for the Bill of Rights). Stop playing the class warfare card and fix the problem that you created.

Step #4: Tell the truth. If a particular “entitlement” program is going to go bankrupt without intervention, tell us. We can handle it. Then, fix the problem in an equitable way. Stop trying to gain a political advantage by claiming that one Party is hiding in a room trying to figure out how to create an unfair tax advantage for their particular constituency and, during the course of the discussion, decides to kill seniors or deprive aid to the disabled. Correspondingly, don’t tell us that the other Party is plotting the overthrow of the United States government because of their fervent belief that Communism will actually work somewhere … someday.

If you truly believe that we all possess “certain unalienable rights” and “that included among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” then you know that we are not guaranteed happiness; we are only promised an equal opportunity to pursue it. Don’t use the term “entitlement” for political gain. We are entitled to the fruits of our labor. We are entitled to fulfillment of the promises you have made when you unilaterally determined what we should pay in taxes and for what purposes those funds should be used.

Step #5: Call me. I am tired of hearing who is to blame. I am tired of hearing that you need a committee. I am tired of hearing that nothing can take effect until after the next election. Call me, and I’ll help you fix the problem.

If I have to do the President’s job, I will bill you at the President’s rate: $1,095.89 per day plus expenses. You can keep the house and the private jet. I’ll have earned the money and will gladly pay my fair share of taxes on it. That should make everybody happy. As the President said in his address of the downgrade, “Making these reforms doesn’t require any radical steps. What it does require is common sense …” So, pick up the phone. I can be there tomorrow. It’s time to get America back on track.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

President Obama: ‘The Audacity of Birthdays’

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 4, 2011 – President Obama celebrated his 50th birthday in style: flying to Chicago on Air Force One and being welcomed by Jennifer Hudson’s obligatory reprise of Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday, Mr. President.” Then, he attended a fund-raising concert with several thousand supporters before dining with approximately 100 major donors. To cap off the festivities, he still found time to blame someone for something.

President Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope. The title expressed what many of us saw in him: a fresh, new face in American politics; a tall, athletic-looking man with a supportive wife and two beautiful children; and a spirited voice of optimism. He offered the promise of “hope and change.” Unfortunately, his presidency has delivered “more of the same” in the form of traditional politics. If he ever considers writing a sequel, it might well be titled, “The Audacity of Blame.”

On July 21st, this column predicted that the debt ceiling crisis would be resolved on August 2nd because traditional politics demanded it; not because of the Hill’s commitment to doing what’s best for the country … but because August 4th was the President’s 50th birthday and major fund-raisers had already been scheduled for August 3rd. Serious money was at risk … campaign money.

The rough estimates are in and the “take” from the shindig in Chicago was approximately $3.65 million (not counting the seven other fund-raising events and 1000 or so additional organizational parties that were hosted in his honor around the country).

Now, we can’t be sure how much the President raised last year when he dined alone with Oprah Winfrey before attending birthday fund-raisers the next day (his family was vacationing in Spain), but we do know that the price of the tickets went up. Last year’s top-end party, hosted by Chicago billionaire and real estate mogul Neil Bluhm, cost $30,400 to attend. This year’s event tipped the scales at $35,800 for the political cognoscenti who could afford to attend. If you do the math, that’s a 17.76% increase year-over-year.

One explanation might be found within the regulations of the Federal Election Commission. The FEC permits campaign donation limits to be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.

However, that can’t be the answer since we’re officially told that we are experiencing a minimum level of inflation (assuming that you agree with the Administration’s position that the price of food, clothing, and fuel shouldn’t enter into the calculation of inflation because they’re “too volatile”). Perhaps the increase of 17.76 percent was just a subliminal manifestation of patriotism at its finest.

However, let’s not quibble over price. After all, what’s $35,800 to the average middle-class American? So, let’s delve into the celebration itself.

In the spirit of the evening and before the private part of the gala began, President Obama took the opportunity to rally his minions. “I hope we can avoid another self-inflicted wound like we just saw over the last couple of weeks. Because we don’t have time to play these partisan games. We’ve got too much work to do … It is going to continue to be challenging every step of the way,” the President said.

It’s interesting that he is distancing himself from the debt ceiling debacle as if he didn’t play a role … or as if it didn’t constitute “work” just because it wasn’t directly related to campaigning. Some might argue that the President failed to demonstrate appropriate leadership when he chose to wait until the last moment to engage Congress on the potentially cataclysmic problem of which everyone had been aware for more than a year. Then again, any earlier engagement might have interfered with the 36 prior fund-raising events he attended in recent months. As it was, he had to cancel planned appearances at about a half-dozen fund-raising events just over the three weeks that he chose to become personally involved in resolving the issue.

It is also interesting to note that, while they remain his primary target, President Obama is no longer restricting his reprimands to the Republican Party and its splintered TEA Party associates. He has subtly begun to allude to the more radical elements of his own Party when he comments about partisan politics. The question remains as to whether the more extreme faction of the Democratic Party will tolerate his thinly veiled version of a public rebuke.

It is one thing for the President to position the entire conservative movement as wicked and obstinate, but it is far more tenuous for him to throw his major fund-raising constituency under the bus. Will those members of his base accept this tactic as a necessary evil that will allow him to retain support among moderates, or will they rebel against his self-serving abandonment of their position? Only time will tell.

In one of the more intellectually amusing moments of the evening, President Obama shared his thinking with respect to the issue of taxes. “What they want to know is our campaign stands for a fair, just approach to the tax code that says everybody has to chip in. And it’s not right if a hedge fund manager is being taxed at a lower rate than his or her secretary. That’s a values issue,” the President said … with a straight face… to a room full of hedge fund managers and others of similar wealth.

He also probably didn’t mean to insinuate that “everybody has to chip in.” Otherwise, the 47 percent of American households that presently do not pay taxes might be in for a rude awakening. It almost certainly was just a figure of speech.

During the private dinner that followed the concert, President Obama went on to say, “I think this episode was just a severe example of what’s been going on for quite some time and it’s part of what led me to run for President. It’s part of the reason why, hopefully, all of you are here tonight, because you recognize we still got some more work to do.” Accordingly, why haven’t we seen more of the “change” we were promised? Why is it still “business as usual” in Washington, D.C.?

Where is the transparency we were promised? Where is the accountability? Where is the bipartisan accord?

Of course, it’s difficult to establish the latter when “blame” seems to be the central premise of the current Administration.

For the first two years, the failed Bush Administration was blamed for virtually everything (many times, deservingly so). However, this strategy disregarded the fact that both the House and the Senate were Democratically-controlled during the final two years of President Bush’s second term (the 110th Congress) and that both chambers continued to be ruled by an overwhelming Democratic majority during President Obama’s first two years (the 111th Congress). Could there be some joint culpability involved in our nation’s challenges or should we simply ignore the obvious?

Luckily, just as Bush-bashing was beginning to lose steam, the Democratic Party lost control of the House. This allowed the President to shift the blame to House Republicans and their cohorts in crime, the TEA Party. Again, just ignore the fact that the Democratically-controlled Senate has effectively become a legislative black hole into which almost everything disappears … usually without debate. There is no such thing as joint liability on the Hill.

The same proverbial coat of Teflon should be applied to the President. Of course, if he really wants to be the “adult in the room,” he needs to accept responsibility and demonstrate more leadership. In that regard, let’s review an excerpt from The National Platform of Common Sense that addresses leadership.

“In keeping with the current direction of our country and out of respect for the amount of debt we owe to China, I thought I would quote Lao Tse (in Tao Te Ching):

“‘The superior leader gets things done with very little motion. He imparts instruction not through many words but through a few deeds. He keeps informed about everything but interferes hardly at all. He is a catalyst, and though things would not get done well if he weren’t there when they succeed he takes no credit. And because he takes no credit, credit never leaves him.’

“All kidding aside, that’s a pretty profound description of leadership and one from which the “leaders” in our Executive and Legislative Branches would greatly benefit if they took heed. Compare and contrast that to their more predominant tendencies toward chest-thumping, credit-stealing, blame-shirking, and behavior-shifting. Am I the only one who’s troubled by the “star” status that appears to be so desperately sought by our “leaders?”

“I’d be more comfortable calling most of the members of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government “celebrities” rather than “leaders.” I think that would help the general public see them more clearly. After all, while we may misguidedly idolize “celebrities” for the roles or games they might play, we intuitively recognize that their importance is somewhat inflated and that their contribution to the world is one of entertainment.”

Think about that. Leadership isn’t about taking credit. It also isn’t about assigning blame. It’s about taking responsibility and taking action. There isn’t a “celebrity” status associated with it.

Having worked primarily in the world of corporate turnarounds for 30 years, there was one recurring theme: when you agreed to take over, all of the problems became yours.

You needed to demonstrate leadership by assuming responsibility for the facts as they existed when you took control. It did not matter how those circumstances came into effect or who contributed to their creation. It only mattered that you provided the leadership necessary to recover from the past and to establish an environment that fostered the opportunity for a better future.

Leadership isn’t about “winning;” it isn’t about taking credit, and it isn’t about raising money. It’s about getting the job done. May the President have success in that regard during the remainder of his term, and may “the audacity of blame” fade away as quickly as “the audacity of hope” apparently did.

(Read: The Debt Ceiling War: Cut, Cap, Balance vs. Cut, Tax, Spend to learn the details about The Common Sense Czar’s accurate prediction of the resolution of the debt ceiling crisis.)

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

Obama & Boehner: Can they reach a capital debt compromise

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 29, 2011 – As the debt crisis threatened to ruin the President’s birthday fund-raising events, it was obviously time to call upon the citizens to take sides. In his address to the Nation, President Obama eloquently said, “The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government. So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard. If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know. If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.” There are a lot of double entendres in those four sentences!

Did the American people vote for a “divided government?”

In the Clintonian sense, it depends on what the definition of “divided” is. According to Webster’s Dictionary, the primary definition of “divided” is “separated into parts or pieces.” It would seem that the Constitution already accomplished that in its first three Articles.

Perhaps the President was referring to the fact that the voters “divided” Congressional control between the two major Parties (giving control of the House to the Republicans and allowing control of the Senate to remain with the Democrats). It’s hard to conceive of why the electorate would break up the Democratic “monopoly” given how successful it had been, but then, they did the same thing during the Bush Administration’s stellar years. We can only hope that it didn’t have anything to do with the lack of establishing a budget.

Then again, “divided” also is defined as “disagreeing with each other” or “directed or moved toward conflicting goals.” That can’t be the answer because we already had that in place without voting for any change. Besides, isn’t that really the same thing as a “dysfunctional government?”

There’s one way to find out. Let’s look up “dysfunctional.”

Well, that isn’t any help! It just shows a picture of both Chambers of Congress with the President standing in the middle.

At least we could all understand the President’s plea “to make your voice heard,” and many people apparently did … on both sides of the issue. This was rather unfortunate as the President really only wanted citizens who agreed with his position to make their voices heard. When will we ever learn to listen?

President Obama also called for “a balanced approach to reducing the deficit.” While the national debt and budget deficit are two distinctly different things, let’s not quibble over it. As the President said, “I won’t bore you with the details.”

The phrase, “a balanced approach,” might be defined as “an equipoise between contrasting solutions” … but let’s hope not. Otherwise, we’d have to look up “equipoise!”

Actually, “a balanced approach” sounds quite appealing. It also suggests that the other Party’s alternative is “imbalanced,” which is always a good ploy in the world of politics.

To drive a few more nails into that coffin, always try to claim that the other side is trying to “ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before (it) ask(s) a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.” Then, tack on a comment about how they’d rather “ask a student to pay more for college before (they) ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?”

There’s no penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, so throw in as many groups and social issues as you can to attract an emotional response. It’s always better to have voters thinking emotionally than it is to have them thinking rationally.

Of course, you can always count on an equally misleading response from the other side. Again, be sure to establish your emotional base as Speaker Boehner did: “I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the President to identify a path forward.”

Then, use “balance” in the name of your Party’s proposal to offset the President’s use of the term (as in Cut, Cap, and Balance).

Caveat: If you’re a Republican, don’t try to inject humor. It just isn’t within your nature. Avoid saying things like, “(Here’s what we got …) a ‘stimulus’ bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs.” Besides, it’s tough enough to get a laugh under normal circumstances. It’s even worse when there isn’t an audience present.

Were there opportunities to inject a more clever repartee? Of course, there were. Imagine how entertaining it would have been had the Speaker been quick on his feet and not committed to delivering a carefully prepared speech.

President Obama deftly wove the following into his speech: “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment? And I think I know your answer.” Then, he added, “Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan.”

There’s almost no way for a Republican to trump a Democrat who plays the “Reagan card” … except in this instance.

Imagine how much fun it would have been had Speaker Boehner said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better” … and then added, “Those words were spoken by then-Senator Barack Obama.”

It would have been the equivalent of a political bar fight!

To give the two Party leaders a little credit, they did seem to agree on a few points. They both concluded their remarks by asking God to bless us and to bless America. Additionally, the President said, “For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in,” and the Speaker said, “The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you’re spending more money than you’re taking in, you need to spend less of it.” When the two Parties can at least agree on the root cause, there may be an opportunity to fix the problem.

That’s where “compromise” comes into the equation. “Compromise” can be defined as “a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions to combine qualities or elements of their respective positions.”

The President appropriately has called for compromise. He just happened to use the rest of the 2,302 words of his address to castigate Republicans for being obstinate, which is always a great strategy … unless you’re trying to elicit compromise.

Then again, a number of Republicans have been obstinate and have negatively influenced the opportunity for compromise. They have truculently refused to consider any plan that includes a tax increase.

Of course, a number of Democrats have been obstinate as well. They have refused to consider any plan that doesn’t include a tax increase for the rich.

That’s what killed last Sunday’s near-settlement. The Parties had essentially struck a deal when the President decided to add $400 billion in taxes to the compromise agreement. Oops!

Generally speaking, the President abandoned his 2008 campaign promise of creating bipartisan support in deference to what seems to have become the driving force of his 2012 re-election campaign: the political homonym of “buy partisan support.” He just isn’t willing to risk losing his base.

Still, you’ve got to give him high marks for chutzpah. He has appeared on national television several times this week and ignored the fact that compromise requires both sides to participate. The Senate has tabled a bill without debate; it has declared other prospective bills to be “dead on arrival;” and even the President himself has declared that he will veto any bill that doesn’t push the problem to a date that won’t interfere with his bid for re-election.

One has to wonder why an interim solution is not even worthy of consideration … unless it is a concession to the fact that our leadership in Washington, D.C. will inevitably wait until the eleventh hour to address it … just like they did this time. It’s not as if they weren’t aware of the pending debt ceiling crisis. Our “leaders” apparently like to stand on the railroad track while a train speeds toward them just to see who will jump first.

In real life, epitaphs are written for those who are so foolish. In the political world, they just get re-elected for “standing firmly” on their principles. Not surprisingly, the cycle then repeats itself.

Interestingly enough, the bill that did pass the House contained a Balanced Budget amendment. While the Senate tabled it without a debate (much less a vote), the President already announced that he would veto it. It was argued (among other things) that a Balanced Budget amendment would be too hard to pass.

The reason I raise this is because 22 USC 286 authorized the United States to accept membership in the International Monetary Fund. Then, in 1978, Public Law 95-435 was passed to amend 22 USC 286. Tucked away in Section 7 of Public Law 95-435 is the following condition: “Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts.”

Hmmm … that almost seems like a requirement to balance the Federal budget. Then again, we’ve ignored it since 1978. So, why should we begin to impose it now?

We can all rest at ease because a compromise will come. After all, Washington, D.C. is all about compromise. As a verb, “compromise” can also be defined as an “act that exposes or makes one (or another) liable to danger, suspicion, or disrepute.” That’s almost the definition of life on the Hill.

How often have our elected officials demonstrated a profound proficiency for “compromising” their principles or being caught in “compromising” situations? Whether they’re tweeting inappropriate personal pictures, accepting gifts in return for political favors, or just not paying their taxes, we can always count on them to “compromise” some standard that the bourgeois hold dear. Given that fact, someone will compromise something and the debt ceiling issue will be resolved … at least until after the next election.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

The Debt Ceiling War: Cut, Cap, Balance versus Cut, Tax, Spend

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 20, 2011 – The debt ceiling debate has forced a third party to emerge in American politics. We have the “The Party of No” (a.k.a. the Republicans), “The Party of Don’t Know” (a.k.a. the Democrats), and “The Party of Do Nothing” (a.k.a. the Executive Branch of our government). At the moment, The Party of Do Nothing is leading the pack and providing life-support for The Party of Don’t Know. It’s all in the marketing.

We no longer have effective leadership in Washington, D.C. That lost art has given way to image consultants, speech writers, public opinion polls, and political strategists.

In that world, The Party of No is lagging far behind. Its marketing prowess is relatively archaic. In my book, The Right is Wrong, I repeatedly reference examples of the Republican Party’s political ineptitude in its own National Platform. This is yet one more illustration of the problem.

The Republican Party is ruled by fear. In the case of the debt ceiling debate, the Party is being held hostage by the echo of “No new taxes.” You’d think that they would have learned their lesson, but apparently, the Party’s leadership is slow.

In the past, the Republican Party has supported raising the debt ceiling on many an occasion. However, its fear of a TEA Party reprisal has paralyzed its ability to think. Thus, it has chosen to defend its reputation as The Party of No.

Of course, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D – TX) thinks there may be another reason. She wasted time on the floor of the House the other day with a not-so-veiled query as to why the evil Republicans might be resistant to raising the debt ceiling at this time. This is why she’s the epitome of The Party of Don’t Know; she doesn’t seem to have a clue as to why the Republicans are resistant. She just chooses to continue her tiresome reprise of Haley Joel Osment’s role in The Sixth Sense. To wit: “I see racists.”

The Party of Don’t Know has been living a charmed life. It’s every bit as truculent as The Party of No, but it has always escaped the blame. That’s because, rather than be ruled by fear, the Democratic Party has learned to rule by fear.

As I said in my book, The Left isn’t Right, orchestrating group-directed fear is central to the “oppressed minority” strategy that the Democratic Party deploys in its National Platform. To the sick, they say, “Republicans want to kill you.” To the elderly, “Republicans want you to die.” To the poor, “Republicans want to drive you deeper into debt so their rich friends can fly around in private jets.” This is fear-mongering at its finest!

Unfortunately, The Party of Don’t Know never has a solution. It knows that Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt; it knows that Social Security is going bankrupt; it knows that the country is going bankrupt; but it never has a plan to remedy these situations beyond the Pollyannish retort of “tax the rich … they don’t pay their fair share!”

Then, there’s the perpetual drone of Minority Leader Pelosi starting her weekly press conference with the phrase “XXX days since the Republicans have taken over control of the House of Representatives … and still no jobs bill.” Just add 365+ days to that total and you have the number of days since the Democrats have submitted a budget that could have addressed the debt ceiling issue.

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Reid is on record as saying, “There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion.” Perhaps it’s because The Party of Don’t Know doesn’t know how to create a feasible one. Could that have contributed in some small way to our current debt crisis?

Correspondingly, many Democrats (including their leadership) have been as resolute in opposing any consideration of modifying entitlement programs as the Republicans have been in opposing any new taxes. Yet, they have avoided the stigma of being considered unreasonably obstinate. That’s because they’ve received great ground cover from the President.

President Obama has been exceptional at providing sound bites that obscure the real issues and shift the blame away from his Party. Does he know that Medicare/Medicaid is going bankrupt; that Social Security is going bankrupt; and that the country is going bankrupt as well? Sure! Has he known these things for a long time? Absolutely! Has he done anything about them in a timely manner since taking office? Yes! He’s blamed President Bush.

Aside from that, The Party of Do Nothing has … well … done nothing. At some point, the President needs to take responsibility for what is accomplished during his term. Can you imagine an America in which we demanded that the torch be passed on the first day in office?

Does it really matter who created the problem? Perhaps if this Administration spent as much time fixing the problems as it does fixing the blame, we wouldn’t always be managing a “crisis” (read “Fix the Problem … Not the Blame” in The National Platform of Common Sense). Besides, if one actually pays attention to Articles I and II of the Constitution, most of the credit and blame should be directed at Congress. It’s just more difficult to point a finger at a group than it is to point it at an individual … particularly when you may have been a member of the group and your Party may have been in control of the group in the years leading up to your election.

However, the President is beginning to move away from singularly blaming President Bush and tackling the challenge of pinning the blame on Republicans in general. He tries to appear to be “above the fray” by briefly stating that members of his Party are resistant to considering any modification of entitlements, but then he brings the hammer down long and hard on the Republicans for their stubborn resistance to taxing “millionaires and billionaires” to reduce the debt.

Of course, a little math tells us that if we applied a 100 percent tax to the incomes of the upper one percent of American taxpayers and confiscated all of their assets, we’d essentially only buy a year’s worth of relief. That’s barely enough time for the President to get re-elected!

The reality is that we have been aware of the impending breach of the debt ceiling for quite some time. Was it addressed in the President’s State of the Union Address? No. Was it effectively addressed in the budget he submitted to Congress? No.

As a brief aside, the President’s budget was able to deliver on his campaign promise of working hard to establish a bipartisan accord. It was defeated by a vote of 97 – 0 in the Senate. Finally, something upon which everyone agreed! But then, I digress.

Deftly applying the core strategy of The Party of Do Nothing, the President chose not to join the debate until the eleventh hour. As former Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel once said, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” As a corollary, it’s apparently even better if you can help foster the crisis.

By executing the strategy of The Party of Do Nothing, the President has been able to position himself as “the adult in the room.” He’s the only one who is willing to make concessions to save the day for the American people.

This approach accomplishes several things. First, it makes the President look presidential … as if he’s really leading. Second, it allows him to manifest a condescending attitude toward The Party of No. Third, it allows him to posture himself as a mature individual who will gently scold his own incalcitrant Party and teach them to “know better.” Fourth, since he’s offered no definitive solution of his own, it allows him to claim victory no matter what agreement is reached. Basically, he gets to assert that whatever deal gets brokered was his idea … unless it ultimately goes south. Then, it will be someone else’s mistake.

The President is right about one thing. The deal will get done by August 2nd. We will avert an economic disaster. Oh, not the one you’re thinking about. I’m talking about a real economic disaster!

President Obama is celebrating his 50th birthday on August 4th. There’s still time to get him a present! In the alternative, you could just attend one of the two birthday events that are being held in his honor in Chicago.

On August 3rd, the President will board Air Force One, which costs about $181 thousand an hour to operate, to fly to Chicago to celebrate his birthday. Now, you might ask, “Why not save some money and ‘go Green’ by staying in Washington, D.C. to celebrate it with his family?” It’s because there are two major fund-raising events being held in Chicago in honor of the President.

The first event is a dinner with the President. If middle-class Americans can scrape together a few dollars, they can attend. The price range is between $10,000 and $38,500 per ticket. Management has asked that you please park your private jets in the back of the building.

If the price is still a bit steep for the bourgeois, it’s your lucky day! The second event that evening is a concert. Ticket prices top out at only $10,000 to make it affordable to all Americans.

I don’t know about you, but I’m going to have to drill a few more oil wells to rub elbows with the common man who will be attending those events.

The good news is that the debt ceiling crisis needs to be resolved no later than August 2nd. There’s real money at stake with regard to the President’s $1 billion re-election fund goal. If there’s one way to break a deadlock on the Hill, common sense says that this would be it.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

Debt ceiling negotiations: Pelosi, Boehner, Obama & Reid play Liar’s Poker

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., July 12, 2011 – Picture the following: President Obama, Speaker Boehner, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, and Senate Minority Leader McConnell sitting around a table in the White House holding dollar bills to their foreheads. Who is willing to bet the entire U.S. economy that they have the best hand?

Unfortunately for us, it seems like the answer is: all of them! The game goes like this.

The Republicans open by betting that people will understand that Congress is spending more money than it receives, so it must reduce its spending. That seems to be a simple enough concept.

Then, the Democrats “see” that bet by claiming that Congress just needs to receive more money (i.e., euphemistically, generate more revenue; non-euphemistically, raise taxes). That seems simple enough as well. It’s like having someone cover your losses.

The Republicans “see” that bet by claiming that the influx of money would just serve to enable the bad behavior (a little like asking your Sponsor to buy you a drink after an AA meeting).

Then, they “raise” the bet by demanding cuts to sacred entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare.

The Democrats “see” that bet by claiming that the proposed Republican cuts will hurt the poor, the sick, and the elderly. In horse racing, that would be referred to as a trifecta!

Then, the Democrats “raise” the bet by claiming that the Republicans are only opposed to considering revenue opportunities (i.e., raising taxes) because they have an affinity for private jets and rich oil companies.

Who doesn’t hate the people in those categories?

And with that, the Democrats go “all in;” a strategy bolstered by a recent Congressional seat win in New York in which the same argument carried the day.

Much to the shock of some onlookers, the Republicans “call” that bet. It seems that they are relying on the fact that they control the House at this point (that’s House of Representatives rather than “the House” in Las Vegas terms).

Now, it’s really getting interesting!

Meanwhile, President Obama has been playing by himself. Somehow, he managed to “pass” while the early bets were being placed. No one really understands how he consistently has avoided the rules by which everyone else has to play, but he’s been getting away with this for some time now.

Basically, he’s been “seeing” every bet but not meaningfully influencing the game with a “raise” of his own. If this were a game of pool, he’d be playing a “safety” … just trying to leave his opponents without a shot in the hope that they scratch.

The President has tried to publicly position himself as a centrist (much as President Clinton did to survive a disastrous mid-term election and to secure his own re-election). Of course, behind closed doors, the wolf may be doffing his sheep’s clothing. We probably will never know.

What we do know is that the President didn’t venture into the game until the very last moment. Perhaps he believes there is merit in waiting until the storm clouds have gathered; the presidential equivalent of making sure that no one can see his shadow when he comes out … lest we be cast into another six weeks of an economic mire.

When President Obama did choose to engage, he provided “Change We Can Believe In” … or at least, the change to which we have become accustomed.

In his most recent Press Conference, the President stated, “The good news is that all the leaders continue to believe, rightly, that it is not acceptable for us not to raise the debt ceiling and to allow the U.S. government to default. We cannot threaten the United States’ full faith and credit for the first time in our history.”

Don’t bother trying to reconcile that with his statement as a Senator in March of 2006 when he said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’ Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.” Some things are better left alone. Besides, he had to be right one of the times!

In his Press Conference, President Obama went on to say, “I’ve been hearing from my Republican friends for quite some time that it is a moral imperative for us to tackle our debt and our deficits in a serious way. I’ve been hearing from them that this is one of the things that’s creating uncertainty and holding back investment on the part of the business community. And so what I’ve said to them is, let’s go.”

This sounds good. However, you just have to ask: why has it taken “quite some time” to say “let’s go?”

Of course, the President has taken a risk in suggesting that cutting spending may be the answer. It’s not a position that his base wants to support. So, it has been politically critical for him to slip some “revenue” increases into the mix to shore up any vulnerability he has within his party.

He did a nice job of accomplishing this in a nebulous manner by saying, “… it is possible for us to construct a package that would be balanced, would share sacrifice, would involve both parties taking on their sacred cows, would involve some meaningful changes to Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid that would preserve the integrity of the programs and keep our sacred trust with our seniors, but make sure those programs were there for not just this generation but for the next generation; that it is possible for us to bring in revenues in a way that does not impede our current recovery, but is fair and balanced.”

The problem is that both Parties were already “all in” at this point.

House Minority Leader Pelosi had already conducted her own Press Conference in which she stated, “… we do not support cuts in benefits to Social Security or Medicare.”

Speaker Boehner subsequently said, “… my message to the White House over the last several months has been real simple: the spending cuts have to be larger than the increase in the debt limit.”

Senate Minority Leader threw fuel on the fire by saying, “After years of discussions and months of negotiations, I have little question that as long as this President is in the Oval Office, a real solution is probably unattainable.”

Only Senate Majority Leader Reid has been reasonably quiet on this matter. Considering that he barely won re-election against a relatively unqualified opponent, looking for cover might be his best tactic at this point.

Since then, Speaker Boehner has suggested a less aggressive, interim solution to protect against a default. Let’s be honest; he also suggested it to maneuver his party away from the corner into which the President was trying to paint them.

However, President Obama proclaimed, “I will not sign a 30-day or a 60-day or a 90-day extension. That is just not an acceptable approach.”

He later reiterated his position saying, “This the United States of America and, you know, we don’t manage our affairs in three-month increments. You know, we don’t risk U.S. default on our obligations because we can’t put politics aside.”

Yet, Secretary Geithner has told us that, “… default is not an option, failure is not an option.” So, how can the President rule out an interim solution that would buy more time?

The answer seems to lie with this particular presidential comment: “And if we think it’s going to be hard — if we think it’s hard now, imagine how these guys are going to be thinking six months from now in the middle of election season where they’re all up. It’s not going to get easier. It’s going to get harder.” It’s apparently all about politics.

Luckily, the President has provided some clear leadership. “So we might as well do it now — pull off the Band-Aid; eat our peas.” Are you laughing yet? It’s almost as funny as “Shovel-ready was not as … uh … shovel-ready as we expected.”

You know that the stakes are high when the President begins to resort to threats. “I cannot guarantee that those (Social Security) checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it … this is not just a matter of Social Security checks. These are veterans’ checks, these are folks on disability and their checks. There are about 70 million checks that go out.” At least, that’s what the President said in an interview with CBS Evening News.

So, what’s the truth?

By definition, a default would mean that the United States would not be able to pay the principal or interest on its debt obligations. Our country receives about $200 billion in funding each month. The interest on its debt is roughly $20 billion. Do the math.

We could also meet our current obligations with respect to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and veterans and active military as well.

What would collapse? Other government spending!

They’d have to “tough it out.” No more Congressional picnics on the White House lawn (June 15th). Congress and the White House might have to cut their staffs (just like Cisco Systems has announced it will do). They might even have to eliminate some useless programs, consolidate agencies, and liquidate government-owned buildings … just like the President said he was going to do in his State of the Union Address and speech to the United States Chamber of Commerce at the beginning of this year.

If you need some additional perspective, during the Q&A session of the President’s Press Conference, Chip Reid (CBS News) noted, “The latest CBS News poll showed that only 24 percent of Americans said you should raise the debt limit to avoid an economic catastrophe. There are still 69 percent who oppose raising the debt limit. So isn’t the problem that you and others have failed to convince the American people that we have a crisis here, and how are you going to change that?”

To which the President responded: “Well, let me distinguish between professional politicians and the public at large. The public is not paying close attention to the ins and outs of how a Treasury option goes. They shouldn’t. They’re worrying about their family; they’re worrying about their jobs; they’re worrying about their neighborhood. They’ve got a lot of other things on their plate. We’re paid to worry about it … the professional politicians know better.”

Do you feel better now … knowing that “professional politicians” are in charge? It’s amazing that you can pay your mortgage, feed and clothe your family, and balance a checkbook without their help.

Thankfully, the President indirectly suggested one more way to solve the problem. He said, “… if you don’t do the revenues, then to get the same amount of savings you’ve got to have more cuts, which means that it’s seniors, or it’s poor kids, or it’s medical researchers, or it’s our infrastructure that suffers. And I do not want, and I will not accept, a deal in which I am asked to do nothing, in fact, I’m able to keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income that I don’t need, while a parent out there who is struggling to figure out how to send their kid to college suddenly finds that they’ve got a couple thousand dollars less in grants or student loans.”

It seems we have a lot of “professional politicians” who fly around in private jets, drink expensive bottles of wine, and “keep hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional income (they) don’t need.”

Perfect! To all of you “professional politicians” out there, I say: redistribute your wealth. Give your excess money to the government to pay down the national debt. Give it to charity to help the poor. Donate it to medical research to reduce the cost of health care. Invest in start-up businesses to create jobs. I could go on, but you must have more ideas than me. After all, you’re “professional politicians” … and I just have common sense.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

It’s Casey Anthony at the bat with Roger Clemens on deck

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., July 6, 2011 – As the Casey Anthony murder trial comes to its conclusion, the Roger Clemens perjury trial gets ready to throw out its first pitch. Meanwhile, the attorneys involved in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn (a.k.a. “DSK”) contemplate when a rape is not a rape. Has there ever been a better time for criminal justice voyeurism?

We seem preoccupied with high-profile trials while our Nation is spiraling toward bankruptcy. Perhaps it’s the allure of distraction that commands our attention. Then again, it may just be the sensationalism that surrounds the alleged horrific crimes of average people, inconsequential crimes of celebrities, and salacious crimes of the powerful.

The media is quick to capitalize upon these opportunities. After all, scandalous storylines command attention, which in turn drives advertising dollars.

“Experts” are brought in to tell us what’s going to happen and why. Then, when their speculation fails to match the reality of the courtroom, they return to reshape their original theories to conform to the results.

Do juries always “get it right?” No. Does it matter? No. Why? Because there is a presumption of innocence that mandates that it is better to allow a guilty party to go free than to wrongfully imprison an innocent person. That is the premise upon which our criminal justice system is predicated.

Let’s look at the Casey Anthony trial as an example. We have a dead child … thrown into a swamp … in a garbage bag. Due to an investigative error, the body isn’t recovered in time to provide sufficient forensic evidence to establish a clear cause of death. Apparently, the jury reached the conclusion that this, coupled with the lack of DNA or other direct evidence connecting Casey Anthony to the purported crime, created reasonable doubt as to her guilt.

The circumstantial evidence in the case is quite interesting. Caylee Anthony goes missing and her mother parties for 31 days, gets a tattoo, and repeatedly lies to family members and law enforcement officers about her daughter’s whereabouts, which further impedes the ability to investigate Caylee’s disappearance. DNA evidence linked to Caylee (the single decomposing hair) is found in her mother’s abandoned car. The disposal of the body appears to parallel a family ritual for burying pets. An unusual type of duct tape that the Anthony family is known to possess mysteriously seems to have been used to cover the mouth and nose area of Caylee’s decomposed body. Then, there are the Internet searches for neck-breaking techniques and how to make chloroform.

Of course, Casey’s mother readily explained the “how to make chloroform” search stating that she had made it while looking up chlorophyll … even though she seemed to have been at work at the time. Thank goodness she didn’t research the “nuclear family.” Who knows what weapon of mass destruction might have arisen as a result?

While circumstantial evidence used to be sufficient to lead to a conviction, in this case, the jury apparently believed that Casey’s death could have been “an accident that snowballed out of control.” The Defense proffered that Caylee accidentally drowned in her grandparents’ pool and that a decision was made by one or more family members to dispose of her body in an Orlando swamp. We were somehow spared an alien abduction scenario or a theory that Caylee committed suicide, but it didn’t matter; the jury found there to be reasonable doubt that Caylee was murdered.

“Reasonable doubt” is an interesting phrase. It is not the equivalent of “absolutely no possible doubt.” It is meant to allow common sense to enter into the equation.

However, in today’s world of CSI Name-the-City-of-Your-Choice, perhaps we have become jaded. It is possible that we now subliminally need to be absolutely sure. How many times have we seen an innocent person released from prison after serving a long term because exculpatory evidence has recently become available through DNA, etc.?

As lead Defense counsel Jose Baez stated after the case, “We need to stop killing our own people.” Maybe that is the issue that the jury in the Casey Anthony murder trial was really adjudicating.

Of course, this ignores the fact that lesser charges associated with Caylee Anthony’s death were also available for consideration and summarily dismissed by the jury. Instead, Casey Anthony was only found guilty of four counts of lying to law enforcement officers.

Interestingly enough, no one in the general media seems to have challenged the logic of that conclusion. Specifically: if Casey Anthony was lying to law enforcement officials about Caylee’s disappearance for months, why was she doing it? If the death was accidental, why wait to disclose it? Why make up stories, invent non-existent people, or blame family members; all with far less circumstantial evidence to support her claims?

Luckily, the Defense doesn’t have a burden of proof in our criminal justice system. What we did observe is a dramatic application of the Fifth Amendment.

No one shall be “compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” Casey Anthony wasn’t.

No one shall be “subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Casey Anthony won’t be.

No one shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Again, Casey Anthony wasn’t. It’s just unfortunate that Caylee didn’t enjoy the benefit of this same protection.

In any event, the jury has spoken and Casey Anthony shall forever remain “not guilty.” Of course, this is not to suggest that life will be easy for her. Dating could become problematic and finding a job might be difficult. Still, bottom-feeders are almost sure to surface with book deals and movie offers.

In the Casey Anthony case, the only issue that remains is whether Judge Belvin Perry will sentence her to an additional time in prison that exceeds the time for contempt that he gave to the young man who made an inappropriate hand gesture in court. Defense co-counsel Cheney Mason may want to pay particular attention given his demonstrated propensity for making similar non-verbal displays in public.

So, the media will have to move on to “the next big thing.” What will it be: the enormous waste of taxpayer dollars on deciding whether Roger Clemens perjured himself before Congress (a group within which misrepresentation seems to have been elevated to an art form); or deciding whether the prosecution of an alleged rape should be dismissed because of post-act declarations … or the time-honored defense that the Defendant is an important person? The only thing of which we can be assured is that common sense won’t be involved.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

Donate to win a Happy Meal with President Obama

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 29, 2011 – Who wants to have dinner with the President of the United States? That dream can be yours! Have you received your personal invitation from the President yet?

I received mine via e-mail on June 15th. Vice President Biden followed up with a message of his own on June 21st. Then, the President’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, felt the need to send a subsequent e-mail … just in case I hadn’t read the other two.

The Vice President’s e-mail mentioned that the President and he have a routine. They get together “almost every Friday,” but as Vice President Biden said, “… all I get is lunch.”

President Obama must have “gotten wind” of the Vice President’s comment because the President released a video that said, “We’re setting another place at the table for Joe Biden, who wants to join us.” It’s gratifying that the President found a way to make the Vice President almost appear to be relevant!

Of course, the President went on to say, “… and to use one of his (Vice President Biden’s) favorite expressions, ‘That’s a big deal!’” It’s an even bigger deal that the President had the good sense not to quote the Vice President directly.

During President Obama’s 2008 campaign, we were often reminded about how our Nation had been embarrassed on the world stage by the behavior of outgoing President George W. Bush. We were promised “Change.” Who would have thought that the slogan applied to the cost of a chance to dine with the President? And we’re talking “chump change” at that.

“Watch the President’s video, and then donate $5 or more to be automatically entered for the chance to have dinner with him.” That’s what the general release said. I feel particularly honored because the President, in his “personal” e-mail to me, offered me the same deal in return for a $3 donation. I’ve always suspected that he might be fond of me. There can no longer be any doubt!

Just in case you didn’t receive your invitation yet, here’s the text from the one that I received … plus, a “common sense” interpretation of what the President was really thinking.

“I’ve set aside time for four supporters like you to join me for dinner.”

TRANSLATION: One of my campaign strategists told me we could raise hundreds of millions of dollars if I’d lower myself to this ploy.

“Most campaigns fill their dinner guest lists primarily with Washington lobbyists and special interests.”

TRANSLATION: I already met with the “high rollers” at the White House before I even filed to run for a second term, and I will continue to do so on a regular basis until November 6, 2012.

“We didn’t get here doing that, and we’re not going to start now. We’re running a different kind of campaign. We don’t take money from Washington lobbyists or special-interest PACs — we never have, and we never will.”

TRANSLATION: I got over 66 million votes in the last election. Multiply that by $5 and you’ve got $330 million in cash. That’s as much as Senator McCain had to spend in his entire campaign in 2008. Keep in mind: that doesn’t count all the rich celebrities, business leaders, and union leaders who will be kicking in big money as well. Now you know why we think we can easily raise $1 billion for my campaign!

“We rely on everyday Americans giving whatever they can afford — and I want to spend time with a few of you.”

TRANSLATION: We think we can raise a ton of cash on the backs of the middle-class!

“So if you make a donation today, you’ll be automatically entered for a chance to be one of the four supporters to sit down with me for dinner. Please donate $3 or more today: (link omitted)”

TRANSLATION: I really wanted to say, “But wait, there’s more!” … but a few members of my team thought that might be too “over-the-top.”

“We’ll pay for your flight and the dinner — all you need to bring is your story and your ideas about how we can continue to make this a better country for all Americans.”

TRANSLATION: We thought about having you pay your own way … and even charging you for dinner. After all, it’s a privilege to have dinner with me. Just ask Joe!

“This won’t be a formal affair. It’s the kind of casual meal among friends that I don’t get to have as often as I’d like anymore, so I hope you’ll consider joining me.”

TRANSLATION: This is a low-budget deal. You’ll be flying Economy class, and we’ll probably just be grilling burgers and hotdogs. Think: “Beer Summit.” The less money we spend on you … the more money we can spend on my re-election campaign!

“But I’m not asking you to donate today just so you’ll be entered for a chance to meet me. I’m asking you to say you believe in the kind of politics that gives people like you a seat at the table — whether it’s the dinner table with me or the table where decisions are made about what kind of country we want to be.”

TRANSLATION: Who am I kidding? Of course, I’m asking you to donate. Do you seriously think that I would be doing this if there wasn’t a significant amount of money involved? I just pray that the Republicans and Tea Baggers don’t “break the code” and register to win without donating any money. That could really mess up the deal.

“It starts with a gift of whatever you can afford.”

TRANSLATION: … As long as it’s at least $3 … or $5 dollars if I’m not particularly fond of you.

“Please make a donation of $3 or more today, and we’ll throw your name in the hat for the upcoming dinner: (link omitted)”

TRANSLATION: I’m actually going to have Joe throw little folded pieces of paper into a hat. It’ll make him feel like he’s part of the event, and it’s hilarious to watch him do stuff like that!

“I’ve said before that I want people like you to shape this campaign from the very beginning — and this is a chance for four people to share their ideas directly with me.”

TRANSLATION: I didn’t mean it before … and I don’t mean it now. It’s just campaign rhetoric … like closing Gitmo, being transparent, caring about bipartisan accord, lowering the debt, creating jobs, and so forth. You’d have to be totally clueless not to realize that.

“Hope to see you soon,

“Barack”

Of course, this was followed by the normal fine print:

“No purchase, payment, or contribution necessary to enter or win. Contributing will not improve chances of winning. Void where prohibited. Entries must be received by 11:59 p.m. on 6/30/11. You may enter by contributing to Sponsor through (link omitted). Alternatively, visit (link omitted) to enter without contributing. Four winners will each receive the following prize package: one round-trip ticket within the continental U.S. to a destination to be determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion; hotel accommodations for one; and dinner with President Obama on a date to be determined by the Sponsor in its sole discretion (approximate combined retail value of all prizes $1,075). Odds of winning depend on number of eligible entries received. Promotion open only to U.S. citizens, or lawful permanent U.S. residents who are legal residents of 50 United States and District of Columbia and 18 or older (or of majority under applicable law). Promotion subject to Official Rules and additional restrictions on eligibility. Visit (link omitted) for full details, restrictions, and Official Rules. Sponsor: Obama for America, 130 E. Randolph St., Chicago, IL 60601.”

Does the term “crass” come to mind? Have we become so resigned to “politics as usual” that we’ll just accept this type of insult to our intelligence? Whatever happened to the “Change” we were promised?

Of course, President Obama isn’t the first President to lower himself for money. President Bush castigated President Clinton for “renting” the Lincoln Bedroom, which President Clinton didn’t really do. He merely made it available to a large number of major donors during the 1995-1996 campaign years, and they just happened to donate more than $5.4 million to his re-election campaign.

In one of those ironic twists that we have come to expect of politicians, the finger-pointer, President Bush, then used the White House as a backdrop for a few of his fundraising activities.

There is one small problem with soliciting funds from the White House (or any government building): it’s illegal under 18 U.S.C. 607(1)(a) unless you comply with an exception under 18 U.S.C. 607(1)(b). President Obama’s video clearly was made within the White House. However, the DNC argued that it was within the exception (a point with which I concur).

Interestingly enough, the DNC further argued that other Presidents had done similar things. That essentially suggests that we can just ignore the law because, as we all know, “two wrongs make a right.” While this probably wasn’t the most compelling argument the DNC could have made, it looked “stellar” as compared to its remaining argument.

A spokesperson for the DNC stated that the initiative is not a fundraising solicitation. “This is not a fundraising solicitation in any way shape or form … (it’s just) a raffle.” Well, that explains everything!

Since there must not be any pressing issues upon which the President needs to remain focused, he apparently can afford to set aside some time to shoot a videotaped message for “Dinner with Barack.” It’s a good way to connect with the little people.

Speaking of which, the official site states the following:

“Contributions or gifts to Obama for America are not tax deductible.

“Obama for America can accept contributions from an individual of up to $2,500 per federal election (the primary and general are separate elections). By submitting your contribution, you agree that the first $2,500 of a contribution will be designated for the 2012 primary election, and any additional amount, up to $2,500 will be designated for the 2012 general election.”

TRANSLATION: Here’s a workaround for those of you who have a spare $5,000 to kick into the pot because the “recovery” is working so well for you (wink, wink). Now, please don’t enter 1,000 times at $5 a piece. Let one of the little guys win. Besides, if you put up $5,000, my staff will definitely tell me who you are and you can have dinner with me any time you want.

If we weren’t an international embarrassment before, we probably are now. Then again, what if other world leaders begin to leverage the idea? Muammar Qaddafi is supposedly running out of money while battling NATO bombings that the White House says don’t qualify as “hostilities.” Perhaps he’ll just hold a raffle: “Dinner with Muammar.” We may never be able to get him to step down!

In the interim, I think I’ll take a chance to buy a $3 raffle ticket (my price) and give the other $2 to the first homeless person I see. Can you imagine how delighted the President will be if I win?

Then, I’ll tell him my idea for reducing the National Debt: raffle off dinners with each of the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators! Let’s see: there are about 250 million citizens who are old enough to vote. So, 250 million people … times 535 Members of Congress … times $5 … is almost $670 billion. Clearly, America needs The Common Sense Czar!

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

Obama, Romney, Bachmann, etc. – the missing link

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 22, 2011 – The cornucopia of Republican candidates has something in common with its most ardent opponent, President Obama: an insatiable appetite for campaign money. The question becomes: should the Office of the President of the United States go to the highest bidder?

It shouldn’t … but it certainly is trending that way.

As I mentioned in my book, The National Platform of Common Sense, the 2008 Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain, raised approximately $368 million during his campaign. In his failed attempt to “win” the Presidency, he spent approximately $333 million of that sum.

Senator McCain was somewhat constrained by having signed a pledge that restricted his ability to raise additional campaign funds. Then-Senator Obama verbally agreed to honor the same pledge but never bothered to sign it. Since, in today’s world, a man’s word apparently isn’t his bond, Senator Obama was able to ignore the pledge and raise what was considered to be an astonishing $745 million.

Now, Senator Obama could have restricted his spending to something in the neighborhood of the ridiculous $333 million that Senator McCain spent, but he had more than twice that amount in his campaign coffers. So, there was only one reasonable thing to do: spend about $730 million of it … because he could.

Lesson learned: you can buy a lot of attack ads if you have $400 million more to spend than your opponent. Welcome to American politics at its finest!

Of course, it wouldn’t be hard to come up with 100 other legitimate reasons why President Obama won the election, but no one can reasonably deny that money played at least a partial role. The issue is whether that should be the case. Should the person with the most chips at the table have such a decided advantage?

Imagine a poker tournament where everyone started the game with the same number of chips … except for one individual who was given more than twice as many as the other players. Could the lucky individual still lose? Certainly! All other things being equal, is it likely to happen? No!

That’s why we are likely to see a drop-off of Republican candidates after the first campaign financing reports are filed with the Federal Election Committee (FEC) on July 15th. If Governor Romney has a dramatic monetary advantage, several candidates are likely to “fold.” It won’t be because they still don’t believe that their solutions are superior. It will be because the odds against them are just too high.

The odds are even higher for the 2012 election because the incumbent’s campaign committee has established a goal of raising $1 billion to re-elect the President; a goal they are expected to achieve. Never mind that the job only pays $400 thousand a year … it’s all about “winning,” as Charlie Sheen might say. Besides, what else would you do with $1 billion … feed the homeless … educate a few hundred thousand children? Where are your political priorities?

Most people aren’t aware of how stacked the deck is against those who would otherwise be legitimate candidates in today’s political environment. In that regard, let’s take a look at a few salient elements of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) … but first, you’ll need a scorecard to identify who is playing.

Candidates may be funded by individual contributions, candidate committees, party committees, and Political Action Committees (PACs). The FECA requires candidate committees, party committees, and PACs to file periodic reports that disclose how much money they raise and spend. It also requires candidates to identify individuals who give them more than $200 in an election cycle. So far, so good!

Individuals can give:

$2,500 to each candidate per election
$30,800 to each national party committee per calendar year
$10,000 (combined) to state, district, and local party committees per calendar year
$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year
With a combined biennial limit of $117,000 ($46,200 to all candidates and $70,800 to all PACS and parties)

Of course, money can also filter back to the candidates through the party committees and PACs. For example, national party committees can give:

$5,000 to each candidate per election
Unlimited funds to a national party committee per calendar year
Unlimited funds to state, district, and local party committees per calendar year
$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year
$41,300 per Senate candidate per campaign

District, state, and local party committees can give:

$5,000 (combined) to each candidate per election
Unlimited funds to a national party committee per calendar year
Unlimited funds to state, district, and local party committees per calendar year
$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year
No other special limits

Multi-candidate PACs can give:

$5,000 to each candidate per election
$15,000 to a national party committee per calendar year
$5,000 (combined) to state, district, and local party committees per calendar year
$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year
No other special limits

Non-multi-candidate PACs can give:

$2,500 to each candidate per election
$30,800 to a national party committee per calendar year
$10,000 (combined) to state, district, and local party committees per calendar year
$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year
No other special limits

And authorized campaign committees can give:

$2,000 (combined) to each candidate per election
Unlimited funds to a national party committee per calendar year
Unlimited funds to state, district, and local party committees per calendar year
$5,000 to any other political committee per calendar year
No other special limits

Add it all together and “let the good times roll!”

Luckily, “big money” resources are precluded from having undue economic influence in a federal election. The FECA states that no one may make a contribution in cash of more than $100, and no one may make a contribution in another person’s name (even though, in some jurisdictions, they apparently can still vote).

In addition, the FECA precludes corporations and unions from contributing to federal election campaigns as well as federal government contractors and foreign nationals. That sounds reasonable and reassuring. So, why do we hear so much about corporations and unions buying political influence?

Well, it appears that corporations and unions can establish PACs. Corporate and labor PACs are allowed to raise “voluntary” contributions from a restricted class of individuals and use those funds to support federal candidates and political committees … and, of course, PACs can give money to candidates and disclose the sources of their funding. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

Corporate and labor PACs may also conduct “other activities” related to federal elections, within certain guidelines (11 CFR Part 114). There goes the illusion that “big money” isn’t filtering to the candidates through “big business” and “big unions.” Then again, it’s only money.

Money apparently can’t buy influence. No less of an authority than Press Secretary Carney says so. When questioned about the current Administration’s appointments, the Press Secretary said, “We stand by all of our appointments … it is important to note that being a supporter does not qualify you for a job or guarantee to you a job, but it does not disqualify you obviously.”

Evidently, it’s just a random chance that nearly 80 percent of those who raised more than $500,000 for the President’s last campaign were chosen to fill “key administration posts.” The same is true with respect to more than half of the 24 ambassador nominees who fell into that same fund-raising class.

Press Secretary Carney pointed to himself as an example of someone who has risen through the ranks on merit. “I didn’t raise a half million dollars. I didn’t raise any money, and I’m standing here.” Please don’t tell him that “Press Secretary” isn’t one of those positions with which a President would reward a major donor. It’s more akin to getting to be the point man in an assignment to sweep a minefield.

Heather Higginbottom is another example. She is not a “big donor.” Since graduating from college, Ms. Higginbottom has worked non-stop in the political arena. She served John Kerry during his Presidential and Senatorial bids before becoming a valued member of President Obama’s campaign team. Most recently, she was nominated by the President for the position of Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

Deputy Director is the number two position within the OMB. The OMB is the largest Cabinet-level office within the Executive Office of the President of the United States. It is intimately involved in resolving our Nation’s budget crisis. Did I mention that Ms. Higginbottom doesn’t have a background in finance or accounting? We must not have been able to find a “big donor” with appropriate qualifications.

Sometimes money isn’t the key. Sometimes it’s just who you know. But most of the time, it’s money.

It’s sad to think that our best candidates may never enter the race because the “ante” is too steep. It would take a special kind of courage to stand up to “big politics;” a kind of courage lacking among our current band of politicians. Apparently, money talks … and you don’t have to get particularly close to hear it.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

High Crimes and Misty Weiners

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 13, 2011 – Congressman Anthony Weiner’s tearful apology for his unacceptable behavior has taken front stage in the media for an increasing number of days. His party’s leadership, which initially offered tepid support, is now sensing collateral political damage and is calling for him to step down. In an effort to overcome demands for his resignation, he has pulled the “addictive/rehab” hybrid from his bag to help him get out of the “Woods.” In the meantime, the economy is still in the tank, and our politicians have welcomed the distraction.

Does Congressman Weiner deserve the puerile jokes that media pundits seem unable to resist? Were it not for the unfortunate burden of his surname, perhaps he would have been spared … at least to the degree that those who broke ground in this area before him were (e.g., Clinton, Condit, Craig, Ensign, Foley, Frank, Lee, Massa, McGreevey, Sanford, Souder, Spitzer, Studds, Vitter, and the Kennedy of your choice … to name just a few from both sides of the aisle). Some resigned … some still serve in their official capacities. Are we just a tolerant society, or have we become so desensitized to such transgressions that morals don’t matter?

As Alexander Pope once said, “To err is human; to forgive, divine.” Certainly, anyone can make a mistake. Who among us hasn’t? However, should distinctions be made?

It is one thing for people to err early in their lives when they lack experience and a mature appreciation for the consequences of their actions. It is another matter of when they should have evolved beyond that point. When someone decides to represent the People, an even higher standard should be applied.

Elected officials are inherently imbued with power … and with that power should come a greater sense of responsibility. Men (and women) who hold political office should not leverage their position to attract the sexual attention of others. In today’s political environment, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that, in many instances, the elected officials are married and of considerably greater years than the parties upon whom they prey.

Part of the problem is that our public officials no longer view themselves as “civil servants.” For many, there is nothing “civil” about their behavior, and they prefer to be served than to serve. Their sense of personal entitlement is profound.

Rather than being classified as “civil servants,” our politicians are more frequently positioned as celebrities. Perhaps we should hope that they be cast in the next Celebrity Apprentice.1 That would occupy them and Mr. Trump … a veritable two-for-one deal!

The greatest problem with “celebrity” status is that we attribute too much credibility to it (see A Star is Born in the Leadership and Procedural Reform section of The National Platform of Common Sense).

For the past several years, it was difficult to find a news program that didn’t feature Congressman Weiner arguing his position as if it were fact. He was often arrogant and condescending, but that just made for “good TV.” His recent apology shouldn’t have come as a big surprise; he had been misrepresenting “the truth” for years.

Accepting Congressman Weiner’s “explanation,” maybe everything he has said in the past should be similarly categorized as “a joke.” We probably just aren’t smart enough to get his brand of humor. Perhaps the best course of action is to allow him to continue to serve. We should just take away his cell phone, block his use of the Internet, and ground him for a month … or at least until his grades improve.

Trusting our officials to “do the right thing” doesn’t seem to be working. About half of them step down when they violate our trust while the other half remain in office.

The Constitution speaks to presidential Impeachment with nebulous language that refers to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” to go along with the more clearly defined “Treason” and “Bribery” (Article II, Section 4). Within the context of English Common Law at the time (which formed the basis of our Constitution), the term “Misdemeanors” meant something different than it does today lest you think the President can be impeached for jaywalking.

The more interesting descriptive term is “high.” Once again, it does not mean “high” in the colloquial sense with respect to government officials who may or may not have inhaled. Instead, many Constitutional scholars believe that the term was meant to imply that elected officials who hold “high” offices should be held to a higher standard of conduct. Imagine that!

Similarly, Article I, Section 5 states, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.” Of course, as we all know, expulsion from “the Good Old Boys’ Club” almost never occurs. You have to have done something truly dastardly AND proven that you can no longer raise money or otherwise positively impact your party’s chances.

That being said, what if we were to apply a private-sector solution to our politicians? What if we were to have them enter into a binding Ethics Agreement before they could even run for office or, at the very least, before they can serve? Senior executives often have ethics clauses in their employment contracts. Heck! Even “celebrities” occasionally have ethics clauses in their contracts. Maybe that’s the way to get politicians to embrace the idea; tell them they cannot officially become “celebrities” without signing an Ethics Agreement.

The Ethics Agreement could be fairly straightforward. It would require the candidates to act with integrity, honesty, truthfulness, and adherence to an absolute obligation to safeguard the public trust. It would require them to exercise their best judgment and to make decisions that are in the public’s best interest with disregard for any other influence.

Ethics Agreements also typically require that one adhere to the spirit as well as the letter of all applicable laws and regulations. Let’s include that for good measure.

They also generally require that one avoid even the appearance of any criminal offense or professional misconduct. Okay, that may be a tough one for a lot of our candidates to swallow, but we’re making the rules here!

Ethics Agreements also traditionally have an “honors” provision of some kind that requires one to report any transgressions against such ethical principles and standards (including one’s own). That would spare us from a week’s worth of “I didn’t do it; this is just a vicious political attack” denial press conferences … followed shortly thereafter by the inevitable and usually disingenuous “I’m sorry for the pain I have caused” apology press conferences.

Incorporating the key concepts of the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence might help as well. Something to remind candidates of the “self-evident” truth “that all men are created equal” and that every citizen has “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” … regardless of the individual’s sex, race, religion, orientation, affiliation, etc. This could provide some needed direction when elected officials are otherwise tempted to apply their personal prejudices to a given situation.

We might even want to throw in something about how all of their decisions should be driven 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.” Wow! Those are great ideals. How did I come up with them? I must be gifted!

Seriously though, in a nation of at least 225 million adults who can run for public office, you’d think we could find 536 competent individuals at the federal level who would be willing to commit to a Code of Ethics and adhere to it for at least the limited period of their terms. What they do as private citizens, before and after, is their own business. However, the day they decide to represent the rest of us in “high” public office … on our dime … is our business. While we can’t trust our “celebrities” to behave with proper decorum, we have the right to demand it from our public officials.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, The Common Sense Czar, in the Communities Section of The Washington Times.

Author: testsite_tjohara

Pawlenty Quits – Why the Rest of the Candidates Should Too!

Will the Super Committee save the day on debt?

President Obama: ‘The Audacity of Birthdays’

Obama & Boehner: Can they reach a capital debt compromise

The Debt Ceiling War: Cut, Cap, Balance versus Cut, Tax, Spend

Debt ceiling negotiations: Pelosi, Boehner, Obama & Reid play Liar’s Poker

It’s Casey Anthony at the bat with Roger Clemens on deck

Donate to win a Happy Meal with President Obama

Obama, Romney, Bachmann, etc. – the missing link

High Crimes and Misty Weiners

Services

HEADQUARTERS

email CONTACT