testsite_tjohara – Page 3

Congress’s role in torturing the People

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., December 14, 2014 – Many have asked why the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence chose to release its Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program at this time. The answer is simple. They wanted to torture the American people.

According to Wikipedia: “Torture is the act of deliberately inflicting severe physical or psychological pain and possibly injury to a person…, usually to one who is physically restrained or otherwise under the torturer’s control or custody and unable to defend against what is being done to them.”

While this seems to be a reasonable definition, we might be challenged to distinguish it from the position we find ourselves in with respect to our Government.

Think about it.

Our Legislative and Executive Branches of Government, in particular, have demonstrated a proclivity for “deliberately inflicting” relatively severe “psychological pain” upon us.

Their decisions are often based upon what is in the political best interests of the Parties that rule them as opposed to the best interests of the People whom they are ostensibly obligated to serve. They often pass and administer laws and regulations that inherently interfere with our unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” not to provide for our safety but rather to expand the nature of their control.

In addition, the Parties almost seem to derive a sadistic pleasure from dividing our Nation into “tribes” based upon ethnicity, race, religion, sex, wealth, sexual orientation, or political persuasion, and then driving the “tribes” apart by emphasizing their differences rather than their shared beliefs and, whenever possible, their worst characteristics as opposed to their best. This tactic exacts a psychological toll and is designed to inflict pain from a social perspective.

To continue the analogy: We are also under the control of the Government as well as the Parties that dominate it. While we may have the opportunity to move about the Country, we are still “restrained” by the laws and regulations these people fashion. In effect, we are in their custody.

Of course, we have the opportunity to “defend” ourselves. We can exercise our discretion to vote our captors out of office. However, we have been psychologically conditioned to believe that we cannot exercise that option; and that we may only vote for the alternatives the Parties offer. As a result, we have become unable to “defend” ourselves. We are prisoners who are convinced that we have no opportunity to escape.

This brings us to the Army Field Manual. In 2009, it was selected to establish the interrogation standards the CIA is now required to follow. Essentially, it precludes “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.”

Try to imagine Congress or the Executive Branch operating under those restrictions. If we think the gridlock is bad today, what would it be like if those limitations were imposed… particularly the one pertaining to “degrading treatment.”

The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s recent decision to release its Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s Detention and Interrogation Program offers a prime example.

To be clear: This is not to suggest that the release of a well-vetted report that examines the performance of an agency of our Government is inappropriate. In fact, it is somewhat refreshing in light of the well-orchestrated lack of transparency associated with issues involving the ATF, DOD, DOJ, EPA, IRS, NSA, and any other acronym we could string together to reflect a Government department or agency along with an acknowledgment of the political opacity of the State Department and Administration.

This is also not meant to judge whether the Majority opinion of the Committee is correct or incorrect. It is merely intended to reflect upon the “degrading” nature of the report’s release.

At the risk of being glib: We have been treated to an Executive Summary that represents an intellectual iceberg. It reveals less than 8 percent of the document’s content, which is singularly based upon a potentially biased analysis of documentary evidence. No effort was made to examine witnesses who bore specific knowledge that could clarify, confirm, or challenge the interpretations of such documentary evidence that led to the Majority’s conclusions. Then, the Majority opinion was released for political expediency (temporally speaking) without the benefit of a dissenting opinion.

Consider how we might view a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court rendered in a similar manner. It simply is “degrading” to our intelligence and integrity.

Interestingly enough, the Army Field Manual also describes two fundamentally approved approaches to interrogate prisoners: (1) by direct inquiry; and (2) by the use of “incentives,” which may be positive or negative in nature (i.e., a reward for providing information, or the use of fear or other emotionally manipulative techniques). Think about how often our elected officials use fear or other emotionally manipulative techniques to shape our behavior and maintain control over our votes.

Interestingly enough, the Army Field Manual prevents interrogators from humiliating prisoners or threatening to revoke any guaranteed rights they may have. It would be nice if those same courtesies were to be extended to us on a more regular basis.

The Army Field Manual also prevents an interrogator from threatening to turn a prisoner over to someone who might be expected to do the prisoner harm. Conversely, the Parties routinely threaten their prisoners… sorry, that should read “constituents”… with the premise that if their candidates are not elected, the constituents will suffer the consequences associated with falling under the control of the opposing Party.

Finally, the Army Field Manual states that the “Use of torture… is a poor technique that yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the (interrogator) wants to hear.” Compare that to what happens with our current electoral process: It “yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent… efforts, and can induce the (candidates) to say what (they) think the (public) wants to hear.”

There are days we might welcome the sight of a board, a towel, and a pitcher of water rather than being subjected to another election cycle… or the release of a report in a “degrading” manner. Then again, maybe the Geneva Convention doesn’t apply to us. We seem to have surrendered ourselves to political conventions and the “psychological pain” that seems to follow.

__________

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

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

An ‘Unspeakable’ Way to Return the Republic to the People

SAN DIEGO, Ca., December 3, 2014 – Every two years, we are graced with the opportunity to either restart our Nation or reaffirm Jonathan Gruber’s hypothesis concerning our stupidity. Unfortunately, the Parties have conditioned our behavior to favor the latter. They have also been allowed to erect enormous economic barriers to ballot access that have turned our election cycles into auctions. Legitimate independent candidates with fresh ideas can’t afford the “buy-in.” So, we’re stuck… or are we?

What if I told you that a solution actually exists; one that might break the gridlock in Washington, D.C.; one that can be accomplished with little or no money; one that just might return political power to the People? Do I have your attention?

It occurred to me that “We the People” have been ignoring an opportunity that exists within the document that begins with those same three words.

Article I, Section 5, Clause 5 provides: “The House of Representatives shall chuse (sic) their Speaker;” nothing more… nothing less.

The House will elect its Speaker on the first day of the new Congress. The Speaker simply must have a clear majority of the votes cast.

However, most citizens are unaware that the Speaker does not even have to be an elected member of the House. Representatives may vote for any eligible citizen they choose… or we choose for them.

It is also important to note that the Constitution is silent with respect to how the Speaker’s role is to be performed. The position is governed by tradition rather than rules.

Today, the Speaker is expected to serve in a hyper-partisan capacity and to actively set the legislative agenda for the Majority, while delegating the responsibility for presiding over debates to other members of his or her Party.

Conversely, in other Westminster systems, the Speaker is expected to preside as a non-partisan official who facilitates well-balanced debates in order to prevent “political positions” from overwhelming rational thought.

What would happen if a nonpartisan leader were to be elected Speaker of the House?

What if an independent Speaker were to establish nonpartisan rules with respect to how bills reach the floor; rules based upon the alignment of legislation with the best interests of the People rather than the best interests of a Party?
What if an independent Speaker were to personally preside over all meaningful debates to ensure that the issues were fully and fairly vetted?
What if an independent Speaker were to make all committee and staff appointments within his or her control on a basis of merit and integrity rather than strict Party affiliation and seniority?
What if an independent Speaker were to use his or her position to demonstrate transparency and bipartisan accord in an effort to establish a standard against which the Senate and Executive Branch could be publicly measured?

Imagine the shift in our political environment; a shift cannot feasibly be accomplished in any other way.

What if “We the People” nominated an independent Speaker and exerted pressure on our Representatives to vote accordingly?

We would need to be far more diligent in our selection process. Our nominee must be a person of impeccable integrity with demonstrated leadership abilities and an unquestionable respect for the Constitution. In a Nation with approximately 204 million eligible citizens, the odds of finding one are in our favor.

Of course, the Parties can be expected to balk at the idea. There is simply too much money at stake for them to place the best interest of the People ahead of the best interests of the Parties.

However, if we decide to make it a “term limiting” decision, we might get their attention. If there is one thing that most politicians place above Party loyalty, it is their re-election.

There also is a political upside for certain constituencies within the House. Keep in mind: Even if every Representative participates, we only need 218 votes.

The new House will host the largest Republican majority in decades. Absent an independent Speaker who uses merit in determining what bills make it to the floor, House Democrats will be politically neutered for the next two years. If they block an independent Speaker, they will be exposing their preference for maintaining gridlock over empowering the People; a decision that could come crashing down on them in 2016.

This leaves us 30 votes short if every Representative participates. Where might those votes reside?

One place to look is the Tea Party Caucus, which has more than 40 members. Given the RNC’s recent innuendo that the Tea Party is no longer relevant, there may be some cross-over potential within that Caucus.

Republican members of No Labels’ “Problem Solvers” coalition may also be potential supporters. So might freshman Representatives who recognize that they will otherwise be ignored until they gain seniority.

Are the votes there for the People to essentially take control the House? I don’t know. I simply know that the present system has failed us.

Does this have to happen in 2015? No.

In fact, many of the groups that are struggling to create meaningful election reform, which the Parties will never support, may wish to join together to conduct their own National Convention in 2016; one in which they nominate an independent Speaker. Alternative parties may want to join the cause as well rather than wasting their time and money trying to run a Presidential candidate.

To reword an old Master Card ad: The cost of successfully running for the House of Representatives… $1.7 million; the cost of successfully running for Senate… $10.5 million; the cost of successfully running for President… $1 billion; the cost of nominating the next Speaker of the House… Nothing! Now, that’s “priceless.”

Those ads used to end with the words: “There are some things money can’t buy.” One of them should be our Government.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, Deconstructed, in the Independent Voter News (IVN).

The jury is still out on the impact of Ferguson

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., December 2, 2014 – It has been a week since the not-so-grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri, declined to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. However, an indictment was handed down. It simply had nothing to do with the officer or victim and was extrajudicial in nature. It was an indictment of our society in general, its lack of respect for people and the law, and its misplaced priorities.

As in most cases, money and power lie at the root of the problem. Our media outlets, political leaders, and even those who profess to be religious organizers all fall prey to it.

They collectively jump to conclusions that support the most banal beliefs of their targeted audiences; beliefs that readily enflame emotions that can be converted into ratings, votes, contributions, and status. If we allow it to continue, we can expect the status quo to be maintained.

Let’s step back and examine what transpired in Ferguson to better understand how and why the system is failing us.

For over 200 years, we were a “Nation of Laws.” More recently, we have become a “Nation of Exceptions.” Ferguson merely underscores the problem.

The first exception came in the form of prejudgment. One of our fundamental rights in the criminal justice system is the “presumption of innocence.” Apparently, we now have an exception if a police officer is involved in the deadly shooting of an unarmed subject… at least when the police officer is White, and the victim is Black.

To understand the racial distinction, research the deadly shooting of an unarmed 20-year-old, Dillon Taylor, by a “non-White” police officer, in Salt Lake City, Utah, that occurred two days after Officer Wilson’s shooting of Michael Brown. Compare and contrast the media coverage, political interest, and the level of social anger.

As an aside: The police officer in Salt Lake City was wearing a body camera at the time. As a result, it will be interesting to see whether that footage exonerates or indicts the officer involved. For those who care, Dillon Taylor’s character was besmirched as if to automatically justify the shooting. It remains to be seen whether his past was at all relevant to the confrontation.

Speaking of character: Many of those who wanted to jump to the conclusion that Officer Wilson was “not guilty” before the facts were in evidence often did so by attacking the reputation of Michael Brown. This is not how the system is supposed to work.

Michael Brown’s character should only have come into question if it demonstrated a continuing course of conduct or bore specific relevance to the incident during which his life was taken. Unfortunately, this has become another exception to the system.

Stereotyping a Black victim as “the instigator” has become standard fare in certain segments of the media and political leadership. It is just as inappropriate as typecasting every police officer as little more than a vigilante with a badge, which seems to be a favorite pastime of the competing media and political factions. However, it has proven to be an effective way of raising money, locking in the votes of certain constituencies, and even inflating the importance of certain individuals whose roles as agitators serve little productive purpose.

This brings us to the grand jury itself.

It has become popular to repeat the old adage that “you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” Based upon general statistics, that is actually a relatively accurate description of the grand jury process… when it isn’t degraded as it was in Ferguson.

There is a corollary to the “ham sandwich” analogy that has been overlooked with respect to Ferguson’s grand jury: Prosecuting attorneys have an extremely high “win” percentage when it comes to cases that go to trial. That is because they are elected officials, and their “win” percentage is paraded around as a medal of honor when re-election is at hand.

As a result, prosecutors generally only bring cases to trial that they expect to win. Correspondingly, they only submit cases to the grand jury (or to a Judge in a preliminary hearing) for which they have compelling evidence.

As Shakespeare might say: “Therein lies the rub” with respect to the Ferguson grand jury. The released evidence presents the fact pattern of a case the prosecutor probably would not have submitted to a grand jury absent the media and political pressure that was being brought to bear.

While eyewitness accounts stirred the flames of the growing mob (no pun intended), such evidence is notoriously weak. To highlight the problem: If four eyewitnesses were to see a “ham sandwich,” one would swear it was pastrami, another would proclaim it to be prosciutto, a third would say that it was baloney, and a fourth might correctly identify it as ham. As a result, physical evidence (and even circumstantial evidence) is more relevant.

For example: Dorian Johnson, who was with Michael Brown when the latter was caught on tape committing a theft and assault at a local convenience store a few minutes before the shooting, stated that he saw Officer Wilson shoot Michael Brown in the back. Yet, the physical evidence demonstrated that all of the entry wounds were in the front of the decedent’s body.

Mr. Johnson also said that Officer Wilson was standing face-to-face with Michael Brown, who had his hands in the air in surrender when the Officer shot him several more times. Yet, the physical evidence suggests that other than the hand wound that occurred during a previous struggle in the car, the remaining entry wounds did not occur at close range… nor was Michael Brown shot while on his knees with his hands in the air as other eyewitnesses suggested.

This does not mean that any of these individuals intentionally lied. They expressed their interpretation of what they believed they saw. However, their accounts were not substantiated by the physical evidence.

Conversely, other eyewitnesses provided testimony that conformed to the physical evidence and tended to corroborate the account given by Officer Wilson.

Any good prosecutor would have drawn a conclusion with regard to the credibility of the various witnesses and determined that a conviction would be highly unlikely given the physical evidence, the corroborating witnesses, and the circumstantial evidence that was available. It is extremely unlikely that the case would have been brought before the grand jury. Public pressure created the exception.

To make matters worse, public pressure disrupted the normal grand jury process as well.

The reason “ham sandwiches” can be indicted is because when a case legitimately comes before a grand jury, only the prosecution’s side is heard. Grand jury hearings are typically non-adversarial and are only meant to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to establish “probable cause,” and they only require a super-majority rather than unanimity. An exception was made in this case, and nearly all of the evidence was presented in the name of “transparency.”

The whole “transparency” issue arose because people feared that the secretive nature of the grand juries could be manipulated. That is not why grand juries are conducted in secret. The real reasons are twofold: (1) To protect the reputation of the defendant in case an indictment is not issued, and (2) to encourage witnesses to speak freely without fear of retaliation.

An exception to the former occurred within a few days when Officer Wilson’s name was “leaked.” An exception to the latter occurred when the prosecutor’s office released the evidence when the case was “closed” after the grand jury’s decision… all in the name of “transparency.”

This plethora of “exceptions” created a travesty of the judicial system. The system simply gave way to the pressure of the press, the politicians who needlessly interjected themselves into the issue (on both sides of the aisle), and a few individuals who chose to build their reputations and status on the backs of Officer Wilson and Michael Brown.

As a result, obligatory protests were held, and they were accompanied by the habitual array of arson, looting, and vandalism that exploits them. While law enforcement behaved with relative restraint, its more unprofessional elements were magnified by the nature of the events. In the end, legitimate issues remain unchanged.

For example: Ferguson’s population is about 70 percent Black. Yet, Blacks are dramatically under-represented politically. Where is the effort to engage the Black community politically? One Party apparently doesn’t believe the community will embrace it while the other Party takes the community for granted. Let’s fix that!

Correspondingly, Black leaders from outside the community rightfully argue that only three of Ferguson’s 53 police officers are Black. They see this as an injustice and racism. Unfortunately, they do not see how they contribute to the problem on an ongoing basis.

When individuals, who ostensibly are leaders in the Black community at the national level, assail police departments in particular and the judicial system in general (along with other government services), they vilify those roles. How many youths in the Black community are going to be inspired to pursue careers in law enforcement, etc. if Black leadership continually denounces and disparages those who serve in such capacity? Given that reality, it is unlikely that law enforcement will reflect the demographic mix of its community any time soon. Let’s fix that!

And finally, rather than fomenting anger with media distortion and political rhetoric in hopes of growing ratings and core constituencies, let’s ask those two groups to demonstrate more responsibility.

More facts and less spin would be a good starting point for the media. Stop treating us as if we only have the attention span and intellectual capacity of a gnat. Give us more time and more details rather than recycling the same old tripe in sound bite segments for weeks on end. Please fix that, or we will fix it for you by finding other outlets for our news.

As for our elected officials: How about providing an equal education for all regardless of where they live or how much money their parents make? Fixing that problem would create new opportunities and provide inspiration to future generations to achieve their highest potential. It might also break the cycle of dependency that has mired far too many Americans into a perpetual state of poverty while elevating illiteracy to a shockingly high level. Please fix that, or we will find someone who will succeed where you have failed.

May the superficial outrage we see in protest of the killing of one individual, who may or may not have been at least partially culpable for his own demise, turn into outrage with those who would exploit such an issue for personal gain; those who would tear our country apart rather than strive to bring it together. And may we see “outrage” by way of an informed vote in 2016 that purges those who have had decades to rectify these problems but, instead, have chosen to focus on partisan issues, “legacy” programs, and re-election. Perhaps then, Ferguson will have become the catalyst for something special.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

FREEDOM: The Unfounded and Unfunded Myths of Entitlement

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 21, 2014 – Our elected officials have a ministerial duty to create and administer the law without allowing their personal ideologies to affect this responsibility. They are not supposed to abuse whatever limited discretion they may have nor are they to perform their mission with improvidence. Based upon those criteria, they have failed miserably when it comes to what have become known as “entitlements.”

The word itself is interesting. According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “entitlement” is primarily defined as “the condition of having a right to have, do, or get something.” In a normal world, that might correspond to the unalienable rights of “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” that are described within the Declaration of Independence.

Conversely, in a political world, the definition changes to “the feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges); a type of financial help provided by the Government for members of a particular group.” It should be noted that “a feeling or belief” differs substantially from a “right.”

Correspondingly, our Federal Government’s role is to treat people equally rather than to provide different “help” for “members of a particular group.”

This is not to suggest that the Federal Government does not have an obligation to assist those individuals who are suffering through no fault of their own. It absolutely does have that responsibility.

The distinction lies within the way our Government has been used to craft legislation that favors political constituencies in a manner that creates a form of collusion with respect to votes and/or monetary support. This type of complicity exists at the corporate level as well as at the individual level.

Let’s use the Affordable Care Act as an example. It was passed with the argument that health care was a right for every American. Taken alone, that would seem to be consistent with treating people equally.

However, it was skewed to address a business issue. Rather than focusing on how to provide effective health care to every citizen, it morphed into how to provide access to insurance for every citizen. The emphasis is not necessarily the same. The latter has given a booster shot to the insurance industry while serving as somewhat of a placebo with respect to citizens “in need.”

This is what we can expect in the absence of a ministerial policy that guides our Government to “do the right thing.” Let’s close that gap by crafting a Ministerial Policy that represents the final element of The FREEDOM Process™ series; the “M” in the word FREEDOM.

As we have with other policies, we need to approach the development of a ministerial policy statement from a pragmatic perspective rather than a political one. It must be established with deference to the Constitution, reflect the values of our Republic, be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied to address those issues that impact the quality of life that we experience in the United States.

The Ministerial Policy statement of The FREEDOM PROCESS™

“Consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution, the United States shall develop and maintain programs and services that provide for the general welfare of the citizens of the United States in a way that establishes an acceptable quality of life for every citizen. Such programs and services shall be singularly focused on preserving a culture that reflects the values of our Nation including our commitment to providing an equal opportunity to every citizen to pursue success as they choose to define it as well as our empathy for those who merit assistance. These programs and services shall be insulated from political influence to the highest degree possible, properly funded, efficiently administered, and consistently measured against well-defined metrics and sunset provisions that tie directly to their stated objectives. The Government shall encourage cooperative arrangements within the States and private sector to obviate the need for Federal intervention whenever feasible.”

As we have with respect to the previous policies addressed in this series, we can gain an understanding of how this ministerial policy statement might be applied in practice if we parse its components.

This sentence reminds us that the Federal Government is designed to serve a limited purpose. It is to serve as an umbrella to cover those issues concerning “quality of life,” which impact citizens across the States. The prior name of the Department of Health and Human Services may have been more descriptive of the program and service areas in which our Federal Government might be properly aligned; i.e., Health, Education, and Welfare. It might also serve as a hint as to how the Department of Education might be appropriately re-merged with HHS to consolidate ministerial focus.

“Such programs and services shall be singularly focused on preserving a culture that reflects the values of our Nation including our commitment to providing an equal opportunity to every citizen to pursue success as they chose to define it as well as our empathy for those who merit assistance.”

This sentence reflects the compassion of our Nation. We have forgotten that our Republic is a remarkably different experiment in governance. It represents the first model of government in which the People are sovereign. If we return to those roots, we might enjoy a Government with a clear vision of where its focus should be: Protecting the general welfare of its citizens; ensuring an equal opportunity for all Americans to pursue success; and confirming its commitment to ethically provide for those in need.

Article I, Section 8 specifies that our Federal Government may collect taxes, etc. to “provide for the… general Welfare of the United States.” It is implicit that related Federal programs and services must impact the common interests of citizens across the United States.

This does not mean to suggest that programs and services must impact every citizen equally. There appropriately may be qualifying conditions that trigger the application of Federal resources (e.g., medical, monetary, etc.). However, the Government should not be in the business of crafting regulations that do not serve society as a whole. Health, education, and welfare, administered without subjective political intent, all qualify for consideration in an ethically responsible society, and they inure to everyone’s benefit either directly or indirectly.

As we have discussed in the past, providing individuals with an equal opportunity to pursue success as they choose to define it is a critical concept. It does not suggest that the Government has the authority to determine what constitutes success nor the responsibility to guarantee it. Government simply should enact legislation that provides an environment in which people may pursue their goals and be judged within the context of a meritocracy.

Programs and services that mask the symptoms of social issues, such as clear imbalances within our health care and education systems, must give way to solutions that actually address the root cause. Our current legislative approach and the growing trend of circumventing the process by Executive edict have only exacerbated the issue.

“These programs and services shall be insulated from political influence to the highest degree possible, properly funded, efficiently administered, and consistently measured against well-defined metrics and sunset provisions that tie directly to their stated objectives.”

We need to commit to providing health, education, and appropriate welfare assistance in an equitable manner rather than as a vehicle through which political spoils are gathered. Programs and services that are created almost solely to attract the voting allegiance of particular constituencies need to be terminated. Similarly, programs and services that are essentially designed to repay certain lobbies for their ongoing political support must be exposed and ended.

In addition to the Machiavellian approach to the legislative process that MIT Professor Jonathan Gruber recently shared, there is an additional level of exploitation that must be addressed. Numerous programs and services are protected by a veil of public trust that cloaks their negative aspects; i.e., the belief that our elected officials are driven by their fiduciary duty to protect the best interests of the people. This often leads to a blind public acceptance of the program or service.

Social Security comes to mind. Had that program been presented as a lifetime tax on all citizens that would only inure to the benefit of half of them, it may not have been widely embraced. After all, it was based on a payout structure that did not commence until half of the supporting population was statistically expected to be dead (65 was the average life expectancy at the time Social Security was passed).

The false promises associated with the Affordable Care Act are a more recent reminder that “trust” is better given when earned. We inherently trust our elected officials to work on our behalf. History tells us that such trust is often misplaced when the facts are camouflaged by political rhetoric. We need to become more vigilant in this regard.

Funding is also a problem. Legislation is passed without a full understanding of its associated costs. It is assumed that these costs will be funded in some intelligent way in the future. Unfortunately, the only viable alternative is often debt. With our unfunded liabilities associated with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. now approaching $116 trillion, we might want to begin paying closer attention to that issue.

We need to understand the cost of our federal programs and services, fund them properly, administer them efficiently, and establish metrics against which they can be measured. If they fail to deliver upon their objectives, they need to be corrected, replaced, or discontinued.

For example: We can dramatically reduce the cost of our existing “entitlement” programs by directing the Department of Justice to vigorously prosecute fraud, which consumes billions of tax dollars each year. This needs to extend well beyond Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. It must encompass programs such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is designed to help the Agricultural lobby as much as it is designed to help those who comprise our rapidly expanding population living in poverty.

Welfare in general needs to be revisited. It has been used as much to suppress socio-economic advancement as to supplement legitimate needs. If people remain dependent, they will remain obedient from a political perspective.

Where is the outrage that poverty and illiteracy are on the rise in America? There is no excuse for it. However, there is a political benefit that is “built on the backs of the poor” (to copy a popular phrase that is ironically used to express the opposite).

We need to take a rational approach to solving our nation’s ministerial issues as opposed to a political one. For example: We can address elements of poverty, job creation, and health care at the same time if we construct an intelligent solution.

The Clinton Administration was on the right track when it rejected the classic application of welfare. It distinguished between permanent need and temporary need by requiring those of sound mind and body to work in return for temporary assistance. Let’s apply that same concept to a healthcare challenge that currently exists.

Roughly 100,000 people die in the United States each year because of hospital-acquired infections (e.g., CDF, MRSA, VRE, etc.). These infections significantly contribute to the morbidity and mortality rates of our healthcare system and create associated costs both in terms of lives and money. Yet, they are highly controllable. They are directly attributable to inadequate sterilization, disinfection, and laundry efforts within our healthcare facilities.

This approach would save lives, lower the cost of health care, and provide an opportunity to mitigate joblessness and poverty. It would also restore dignity for those impacted individuals and motivate them to pursue their own vision of success rather than to remain mired in a system that otherwise rewards the status quo.

This is but one example of how we should be administering Federal programs and services that are directed at quality of life issues. There are countless more that would require far more space than this column can provide. What improvements can you suggest?

As you consider that question, remember the final sentence of our mistrial policy statement: “The Government shall encourage cooperative arrangements within the States and private sector to obviate the need for Federal intervention whenever feasible.” The Constitution clearly states that the Federal Government has a more limited role than the States (under the Tenth Amendment) and the private sector (under the Ninth Amendment). Rather than always trying to “usurp the field,” we would be better served if our Government exercised appropriate discretion and deferred to the States and the People as much as possible.

A small boat turns much faster than a large ship. We can make more progress and execute more tailored solutions if we stop burdening the Federal Government with responsibilities that were intended to be reserved for others.

To use a healthcare metaphor: Swelling is an abnormal enlargement of an area that emanates from a congenital condition, trauma, or inflammation. The Constitution rules out a congenital cause. Thus, the swelling of our Federal Government is likely to have been the result of traumatic circumstances (a war, etc.) or a persistent source of inflammation (growth orchestrated by the Parties to expand their power).

Just as with physical swelling, it may be time to administer RICE with respect to our ministerial responsibilities (Rest, Ice, Compression, and Elevation).

We should allow our Government to move at an appropriate pace rather than demand knee-jerk reactions (rest). We should cool down the hyper-partisan atmosphere in D.C. (ice). We should encourage the Government to revisit its responsibilities and correctly size itself (compression). And we should establish a clear understanding that the People, not the Government, are sovereign in our Republic (elevation).

With that prescription in place, we now have completed The FREEDOM Process™. Our Nation’s prognosis is good if we follow the suggested protocol. I wish you and our great Nation good health.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

__________

The FREEDOM Process™ is the trademark of T.J. O’Hara. The Freedom Process™ and its acronym components are made available for public use subject only to proper attribution. All rights are otherwise reserved.

FREEDOM: Is ‘Government Efficiency’ an oxymoron?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 14, 2014 – One would hope that operating in an efficient and effective manner would be among the main objectives of our Government. However, those two concepts appear to be foreign to our feckless leaders. Apparently, the rule of “supply and demand” doesn’t apply when a group of individuals has nearly unilateral authority to regulate the supply of programs and services (certainly within the public sector and, to a degree, within the private sector), control the demand (legislatively), and dictate price (via taxation). To overcome this anomaly, we need to frame an operations policy for the United States.

This is yet one more policy we do not have in place. It is critically important because it establishes a performance expectation to which every other policy must conform.

In addition, it goes well beyond the operating efficiency and effectiveness of our Government. It is the policy under which we must define the standards for the Government’s administrative obligations as they pertain to immigration, human rights, regulatory issues, etc.

As with other policies that have been previously addressed in The FREEDOM Process™ series, our Nation’s operations policy must comply with the mandates of the Constitution and be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied. It must reflect the values of our Republic and pay deferential respect to the People.

The Operations Policy statement of The FREEDOM PROCESS™

“The United States Government shall use its best efforts to administer the duties and authority delegated to it under the Constitution in a fiscally and socially responsible manner that provides for the most efficient and effective execution of its related obligations. It shall refrain from intruding upon the rights reserved to the People and States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as such not only wastes our Nation’s assets but also represents ultra vires action. Each separate but equal branch of the Federal Government shall operate within the parameters of its designated powers with no orchestrated attempt to expand such powers or to emasculate or usurp the powers of any other branch.”

As we have with respect to the previous policies we have addressed in this series, we can gain an understanding of how this operations policy statement might be applied in practice if we parse its components. Note that since we are nearing the end of the policies associated with the FREEDOM acronym, we should expect to see a reinforcement of other related provisions that have already been discussed.

The first sentence of our operations policy statement establishes a number of significant metrics against which our Government’s performance can be measured. The first metric tests the quality of effort exhibited against the highest standard that can be achieved. Why would we accept anything less?

Those who would prefer not to be held to such a high criterion should not pursue public office or the Federal bench. Those positions bear a fiduciary responsibility to the People and no lesser benchmark is acceptable. As this column has suggested in the past, a Code of Ethics would be appropriate; one that demands the resignation of those who clearly violate the public trust or place themselves or their Party above “We the People.”

As an aside: It is interesting to observe how many of those who believe that Citizens United is a “bad” decision (which it is) also believe that the Government is sovereign in our form of government (which it is not). The opening phrase of the Constitution, along with the guidance of the Declaration of Independence, should be all the evidence we need to remind us that the People, rather than the Government, are sovereign in our Republic.

Continuing the analogy to Citizens United: Like corporations and other associations, governments are little more than fictitious legal entities that exist only for organizational convenience. The Government itself is not a living being. It only exists through its surrogates (i.e., the elected or appointed officials and staff that are collectively referred to as “the Government”) and for the purpose of surviving them. Therefore, the Government’s “duties and authority” are inherently limited to what “We the People” permit it to have.

Similarly, the first sentence of our operations policy statement reminds us that the Federal Government shall only “administer the duties and authority delegated to it under the Constitution;” nothing more… nothing less. A fundamental source of inefficiency (and its related cost) is spawned by the Federal Government’s ongoing expansion of its influence and de facto control. If it is made to conform to the boundaries established by the Constitution, there is little need to argue over its size. The only thing that gives such arguments substance is the ongoing power grab that the Parties exercise to maintain dominion over the People through the auspices of Government.

Correspondingly, the Government shall administer its duties and authority “in a fiscally and socially responsible manner that provides for the most efficient and effective execution of its related obligations.”

As Part 1 of our economic policy suggested, fiscal responsibility does not preclude debt. However, the purpose for which such debt is required as well as its repayment plan are critical determinants as to whether such debt should be incurred. The Government does not have carte blanche access to taxpayer dollars under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, and it must stop behaving as if it does.

Likewise, unnecessary and inappropriate expenditures should be avoided along with redundant departments, agencies, and regulatory edicts (see GAO recommendations, etc. in Part 2 of our economic policy). Limiting regulatory intervention to those areas that actually comply with the Constitution and reducing regulatory complexity will significantly decrease superfluous compliance costs and return capital to the private sector for considerably more productive use. Applying constraints to the Government’s time to respond to mandatory filings will also yield meaningful savings. Presently, many investment and social decisions lay dormant pending Government response.

The controversial issue of immigration provides one glaring example. There would be far less debate over the issue if our Nation’s immigration system were to enter the 21st century. Rather than optimizing the process to reduce the time and expense associated with many of its gating factors, we have chosen to continue to use archaic processes and administer them in a haphazard manner.

What if we were to utilize readily available technology to screen applicants on a timely basis?

There would still be probationary steps associated with immigration, but the system would not be exploited to raise revenue for the Government and create otherwise unwarranted public sector jobs. If the process were operated in an effective and efficient manner, no rational argument could be made for circumventing the legal method of entry. Appropriate protection and enforcement could be put in place to preclude any other form of entry, and the only remaining issue would be reaching a consensus on how to deal with the results of our failure to intelligently administer our immigration policy in the past.

Speaking of introducing the Government to the 21st century, the horrific waste of time and money spent traveling about the country and abroad to ostensibly participate in meetings that could otherwise be conducted via state-of-the-art web and telecommunication technologies must be eradicated. A good starting point for the related social issue of Climate Change is to cut the Government’s carbon footprint. This isn’t to suggest that necessary travel be curtailed; it merely suggests that traditional political fundraising, campaigning, and other inappropriate junkets be prohibited from becoming a cost borne by taxpayers.

Similarly, the Government must identify and implement opportunities to automate its antiquated processes and to share databases that can optimize the processing of applications, improve security, etc. There is no excuse to continue to tolerate witheringly slow practices that are currently in place.

Our Government has elevated “intruding upon the rights reserved to the People and States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments” to an art form.As stated, this “not only wastes our Nation’s assets but also represents ultra vires action.”

It is important to note that there isn’t an Amendment between the Ninth and the Tenth that presumes to grant individual or State rights to corporations, unions, or other legal entities. Therefore, to maintain the integrity of the Republic, a new Amendment may be in order to clarify that issue for those who seem to be “supremely” confused.

Correspondingly, “Each separate but equal branch of the Federal Government shall operate within the parameters of its designated powers with no orchestrated attempt to expand such powers or to emasculate or usurp the powers of any other branch.”

Operationally, these last two elements remind the Federal Government (as a whole) and the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of Government (individually) that their powers are limited and relatively well-defined. Their efficiency and effectiveness are enhanced by maintaining focus. Accordingly, cost and complexity become far more manageable.

There is even a possibility that our Government can find the time to accomplish work that is uniquely within the Federal domain. For example:

It is not impossible or even difficult to build a more effective and efficient Government. We just need to have the will to do it.

Perhaps as a sign of encouragement, the House recently passed a bill, backed by the White House, to eliminate or modify 53 unnecessary agency reports by a vote of 382-0. While many more useless reports exist along with hundreds if not thousands of worthless regulations, at least this is a start. As a result, the Government will recapture taxpayer money that would otherwise be wasted. Let’s hope that it uses the money to pay down the debt or to address legitimately underfunded programs rather than just find new ways to waste it.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

__________

FREEDOM: A Defense Policy that can be a Weapon for Peace

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 11, 2014 – On Veteran’s Day, it is appropriate to reflect upon the current state of affairs as they pertain to our ability to maintain peace. With the largely unreported turmoil that continues to brew across the world (other than whatever conflict is fashionable to feature at any given moment in time), peace seems to be as elusive today as it was when the holiday first began to take shape. Our lack of a defined defense policy doesn’t particularly improve the situation, and we need to address it.

Historically, the ceasefire that essentially ended World War I was entered into on November 11, 1918. The next year, then-President Woodrow Wilson commemorated the date as Armistice Day. Congress, moving at its normal glacial pace, reinforced President Wilson’s words in 1926 and, in 1938, proclaimed the date to be a national holiday to recognize those who fought in the “war to end all wars.” Unfortunately, World War II began one year later.

Since that time, we have experienced a relatively wide array of wars and military actions. Our progress toward peace has become more of a token element of political rhetoric than a plausible reality. We seem to have found new ways to distrust and even hate each other on a global basis, and as George Santayana warned us, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” (Vol.1 of Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason.)

This is particularly poignant given the 900 or so bases the United States maintains across the world, its tendency to insert itself into other countries’ cultural conflicts, and President Obama’s recently announced order to send 1,500 additional military advisors to Vietnam. Pardon the mistake; that should have read “Iraq.”

The President is too young to remember Vietnam and wasn’t even living in the United States at the time, so he should be excused for not being familiar with the parallels.

Without a clear defense policy, he sent 300 “military advisors” to Iraq in June of this year. Now, just five months later, he has announced his intent to send 1,500 more. Compare this to Vietnam:

Note that our involvement in Vietnam spanned 19 years, while the current Administration has projected that our engagement with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) may take 30 years.

Is it slightly more obvious why a cogent defense policy might be in our best interests? Let’s use The FREEDOM Process™ to create one.

As we have with our Foreign, Resource, Education, and Economic policies, we need to approach the development of a Defense policy from a pragmatic perspective rather than a political one. It must conform to the Constitution of the United States and be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied. It must also be a policy that reflects the values of our Republic while protecting us.

The Defense Policy statement of The FREEDOM PROCESS™

“Consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution, the United States shall develop and maintain a globally effective and efficient system of defense; one that protects this Nation’s citizens at home and abroad and contributes to the maintenance of peace throughout the world. It must be resourced properly rather than profligately and be predicated upon establishing and sustaining technological superiority to minimize the physical and emotional threats to which those who serve our Nation are often exposed.”

What would happen if we complied with this simple statement?

Article I, Section 8 provides Congress with the “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to… provide for the common Defence (sic)… of the United States.” No other countries are mentioned.

Our responsibilities are fundamentally limited to protecting our Nation’s interests at home and abroad. Serving as the world’s police force, pursuing nation-building initiatives, and trying to force democracy on other countries are beyond the scope of our military’s responsibilities. Yet, we routinely place our soldiers, pilots and sailors in harm’s way for just such purposes.

The only legitimate basis for such action lies within the context of treaties established under Article II, Section 2. While that same Article and Section states that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States,” it does not grant that individual with the authority to discharge such responsibilities unilaterally.

Treaties themselves require that “two thirds of the Senators present concur,” and Article I, Section 8, specifically reserves the right “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” to the Legislative Branch of our Government. Even the War Powers Act of 1973 limits a President’s discretion to act in response to an immediate or impending threat to a 90-day window; thereafter, legislative consent is required. We need to stop acting as if these limitations do not exist.

To administer a defense policy that is “Consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to (the United States) under the Constitution,” we must first implement and comply with a foreign policy like the one we discussed in Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of that series. In the interim, our military will continue to be misused.

Assuming that we can overcome the temptation to use our military for political purposes, how differently might we deploy its personnel and other resources in a manner that “protects this Nation’s citizens at home and abroad and contributes to the maintenance of peace throughout the world”?

What if we were to limit the commitment of combat troops (including our euphemistically described “military advisors”) to scenarios in which there is an immediate or impending threat to the security and interests of the United States that is supported by substantive and corroborated evidence or when it is required to fulfill our Nation’s obligations under approved treaties and alliances (e.g., NATO, etc.)?
What if we were to orchestrate the withdrawal of United States military personnel, under the guidance of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from foreign countries that have not requested our presence as well as from those countries that ostensibly approve of our presence but have failed to demonstrate a concern for the safety of our troops?
What if we were only to maintain military personnel in countries that are receptive to our presence if no other strategic alternative is available to fulfill our associated obligations?
What if we were to relocate returning military personnel to bases established on existing or acquired federal property residing on our Nation’s northern and southern borders and allow such assets to set up a perimeter within which they could perform exercises that would not only maintain their state of readiness but also serve to protect our borders?
What if our Legislative Branch focused on funding programs that maintain and enhance the technological superiority of our Nation’s defense capabilities to lower the risk military personnel in traditional war-fighting environments as well as to address emerging threats, such as cyber-terrorism, that threaten our economy and vital infrastructure (e.g., utilities, secured information systems, etc.)?

How much more effective and efficient might our military become?

Additionally, what if we expanded the use of our military’s advanced logistics capabilities to support even more humanitarian relief initiatives than we currently do? How might that mitigate civil unrest?

It certainly appears to offer a more rational alternative than sending weapons or money to other countries to maintain and improve their military capabilities. This is particularly true of the tens of billions of dollars in “aid” that we provide to countries that are openly hostile to our interests or that are chronically at war with their neighbors.

It is amazing to witness the “gun control” movement in the United States while simultaneously observing the way our Nation arms the world in a relatively indiscriminate manner. While the related defense contracts may buy favor with the lobbies and PACs that fund election campaigns, they do little to contribute to global stability or to our safety at home or abroad.

Finally, what would happen if we redirected some of the enormous savings these suggestions might create toward four special programs for those who retire or receive an honorable discharge from the service? Specifically:

A reintegration program that provides an incentive for companies, charities, and agencies that demonstrate a preference for hiring, training, and retaining veterans;
Expanded educational opportunities, including transition assistance and tutoring, for veterans who need it;
Exceptional (rather than merely adequate) medical and psychological assistance for those who are suffering as the result of their service; and
An effective housing program to address the disproportional issue of homelessness among discharged veterans.

We have the capability of radically changing our defense policy… or perhaps we should say, “to create one.” There is no excuse for continuing to over-fund the failing aspects of our defense efforts while under-funding the legitimate ones. Our veterans deserve better; and even for those who are too selfish to care, a suppression of political egos along with an intelligent investment of money and effort will result in far greater protection and a safer world as well. Think about it.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

__________

FREEDOM: Fixing the US economy for more than just the rich (Part 2)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 10, 2014 – The United States’ economic recovery has been slowed by the absence of a well-defined economic policy. It also seems to have been limited to the rich and missed entirely by the poor; the latter of which has been supplemented by individuals who were formerly members of the ever-dwindling middle class.

Far too often, federal programs dramatically exceed their cost projections and fail to deliver their “guaranteed” savings or accomplish their stated objectives. Meanwhile, the national debt continues to skyrocket.

A funny thing happens when we don’t have an economic policy: Fiscal chaos. Some of the impact is good and some of it is bad. The positive is celebrated as a political achievement while the negative is assigned political blame. The problem is that progress is almost left to random chance.

We addressed that issue when we created an economic policy statement in Part 1 of this series (FREEDOM: Not having an Economic Policy is expensive). Now, it is time to explore a few applications.

Congress’s authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Imposts and Excises” is granted “to pay the Debts… of the United States” that are incurred for a relatively narrow range of purposes; i.e., “to provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.” What if Congress were to be held to those two specific standards?

Debt incurred to fund programs designed “to provide for the common Defence (sic) … of the United States” is relatively easy to identify. The key is to ensure that any such expenditure is necessary as opposed to politically expedient. The test is relatively straightforward: Is a program strategically essential to our Nation’s defense or is it driven by lobbies or to score political points through the delivery of a needless Defense contract to a particular State or District? This simple examination might save tens of billions of dollars with respect to the Defense budget and more effectively equip and support our military personnel.

Debt incurred to fund programs designed “to provide for the… general Welfare… of the United States” represents a more nebulous challenge in auditing. However, the litmus test is whether a particular program inures to the benefit of the general population of the United States as opposed to a narrower constituency that might serve political purposes rather than public ones (i.e., programs crafted to benefit particular lobbies or demographic groups that traditionally support one of the major Parties either with money, votes, or both). This analysis has the potential to eliminate a myriad of federal programs that currently absorb tens of billions of taxpayer dollars that are not constitutionally supportable.

This does not mean that benevolent programs would disappear from the landscape. It simply means that they would need to be addressed within the private sector or at the State and local levels (as per the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, respectively).

This decentralized approach provides an opportunity to tailor programs to meet the needs of citizens within a particular geographic area rather than apply the “one size fits all” solutions that federal programs require. Correspondingly, residents are likely to have a much greater “say” in how the programs are structured if they are administered at a State or local level, which should produce more efficient and effective operations.

These two fundamental changes (with regard to Defense and general Welfare) significantly decrease the federal government’s funding requirements, which should translate into an ability to reduce the national debt and lower taxes. Lowering the debt has the added benefit of reducing interest payments that otherwise represent an inefficient use of federal tax dollars. Similarly, cutting federal taxes frees capital for private sector reinvestment or to be recaptured by State or local taxing authorities to underwrite programs that are custom-designed for their residents.

Next: The federal government needs to intelligently address its controllable expenses. It needs to recognize the fiduciary duty it has to exercise fiscal responsibility.

For example: Congressional and Presidential travel should be closely scrutinized. Currently, Congressional junkets to foreign countries generally have little direct connection to the defined responsibilities of our Senators and Representatives. Too often, these serve as little more than perks. An efficient Department of State should be able to establish foreign relations and gather whatever information might be necessary to provide Congressional leadership with the data upon which effective legislative decisions can be made.

Absent a “show of cause,” why not limit Congressional travel to that which is required to journey between Washington, D.C., and each Senator’s State and Representative’s District?

Similarly, the President is paraded around the country at considerable taxpayer expense ($181,000 per hour for the operation of Air Force One alone) to fundraise for his Party and campaign on behalf of other Party candidates (although the latter has diminished in alignment with his ratings). These trips have absolutely nothing to do with the President’s responsibilities, and on those occasions when the law requires the Parties to reimburse the People for such excursions, reimbursement is ridiculously limited to the ordinary cost of a first-class ticket. If the Parties were required to fully reimburse the People, the Parties would necessarily find some other way to raise money and promote their candidates rather than diverting our President’s time.

There is a plethora of other areas in which the Legislative and Executive waste can be eliminated at the individual level. However, the really big savings lie within the departments and agencies that no longer function with clarity.

In 2010, retiring Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) sponsored two pieces of legislation to address this issue. One bill requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to identify areas of fragmentation, redundancy, and duplication within federal programs. The second bill requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to publish an inventory of all federal programs on the Internet.

The GAO has done its job every year by pinpointing hundreds of billions of dollars of potential savings and revenue enhancement initiatives that have largely been ignored by the Administration. At a minimum, these recommendations should be the starting point for building a more efficient and effective federal government, and they should be implemented before any new non-emergency programs can be launched or any tax increases or other new revenue alternatives can be considered.

Conversely, the OMB cannot even name its federal programs. Rather than applying a uniform definition as to what constitutes a program, the OMB left the definition to the discretion of each agency. As a result, in one segment of agencies, the OMB listed less than half of the federal programs that the GAO was able to find (using a consistent definition).

Perhaps this reflects upon a greater issue: Allowing various groups within the Government to apply inconsistent definitions or amend them to generate the results that better serve their purpose. Until every department, agency, and branch of government conforms to the same rules, we will continue to receive relatively useless reports (e.g., inflation, job numbers, unemployment, etc.) and the Government will continue to squander taxpayer dollars.

For the sake of brevity, let’s just list a few other obvious steps the Government can take to reduce waste, produce jobs, improve skills, and expand the economy. Specifically:

These suggestions represent some of the “low-hanging fruit” that could be explored to restructure our Government’s focus and expenditures.

If, in an effort to avoid withdrawal symptoms, the Government has to identify a new program that complies with the concept of providing for the general Welfare of the United States, perhaps it should consider funding a campaign that educates the People on how they can take action without Government intervention to help close the growing income gap that exists between the dwindling middle class and the uber-rich.

“We the People” can cast our “dollar votes” every day in a free market system. We are not restricted to taking action on a single day every other year as is the case in the world of politics.

Shareholder pressure can be used to narrow the sometimes extreme compensation gap that exists between workers and senior executives in publicly traded companies. It is a matter of educating shareholders to understand how a private sector “redistribution” of exorbitant executive salaries inures to their benefit.

It is difficult to rationalize executive compensation packages that strip tens of millions of dollars from a corporation to compensate a select few. As soon as shareholders recognize that those same funds could have been used for other purposes that offer a higher return on investment, they may be inclined to pressure their Boards to take action accordingly.

For example, which of the following scenarios offers the greatest return on investment: Paying a CEO $55 million or finding a competent CEO who is willing to perform the role for $5 million (still a princely sum) and redeploying the recaptured capital ($50 million dollars) either by significantly expanding the workforce, investing in productivity enhancements, or distributing it in the form of dividends?

The first of the alternative investments creates jobs and expands the economy through the company’s added capacity. The second alternative also creates jobs and expands the economy (both directly through the company and indirectly through the vendor network) as does the third. Note that with respect to dividend distribution, job creation and economic expansion come from the spending of such dividends, the saving of such dividends (which expands the banking industry’s ability to fund businesses), or through the impact of its reinvestment in the same or other stocks.

If the Government feels compelled to launch a fresh program, let it be one that actually can close the income gap through private sector initiatives that do not layer regulatory costs on businesses. Educate the People and let them exercise the real power of the purse.

Of course, there is a risk associated with educating the People. They may become more informed voters as well.

What solutions can you offer? Would you rather be in control of your future, or would you rather delegate it to your elected officials to dictate? Think about it.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

__________

FREEDOM: Not having an Economic Policy is expensive (Part 1)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 30, 2014 – Recently, China quietly overtook the United States to become the world’s largest economy on the basis of purchasing power (according to the International Monetary Fund). The President didn’t call a press conference to announce the accomplishment because it’s not exactly a favorable reflection of his Administration. It’s also an election year, so expect it to be blamed upon a spontaneous response to an Internet video.

In reality, it occurred because China actually has an economic policy whereas the United States does not. Our Nation’s financial behavior in recent years has been somewhat less than “strategic” and the concept of “fiscal responsibility” never seems to have been contemplated.

We have had successive Administrations whose attitudes can best be described as “borrow-and-spend,” “tax-and-spend,” or a blend of both. They apparently never saw a war or constituent-placating program they didn’t like. As a result, we are rapidly approaching $18 trillion in debt.

Let’s put that in perspective.

If you had $18 trillion dollars, lived to be 79.8 years of age (the current overall life expectancy in the United States) and spent $1 billion a day every day of your life while the balance earned 5 percent compound annual interest, you would still have roughly $18 trillion dollars when you died.

If that debt were “redistributed” among us, every American would have to write a check for more than $56,000 to cover it. Of course, if we only burdened those who actually contribute money to the government’s coffers, the number soars to more than $153,000 per taxpayer.

Is that easy enough to understand?

Of course, the real problem is much bigger. Our unfunded liabilities now exceed $115 trillion, which dwarfs our national debt. (See the U.S. Debt Clock.)

Now, we have potential candidates pandering to the lowest common denominators of their Parties by arguing over “who built what.” Only one axiom remains in tack: “Don’t let anybody tell you it’s government and politicians that create solutions” because “trickle-down truth” hasn’t been part of our political reality for quite a long time.

In the absence of a cogent economic policy, we need to develop one. We also need to recognize that it is the most critical component of our national policies because it impacts every other element. That is why it is represented by the middle “E” in The FREEDOM Process™.

As we have with the Foreign, Resource, and Education policies in the articles that precede this one, we need to approach the development of an Economic policy from a pragmatic perspective rather than a political one. It truly is the policy that sets us “FREE” since it is intertwined in every policy decision that must be made.

Our economic policy must be constitutionally based, and it must establish a fiscally responsible vision that can be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied; one that reflects the values of our Republic and assures our ability to compete in a global economy.

The Education Policy statement of The FREEDOM PROCESS™

“The United States economic policy shall conform to the two most fundamental parameters prescribed by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that restrict Congress’ “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Imposts and Excises to pay the Debts… of the United States.” In that regard, Congress shall pass no law that is not directly tied to providing for “the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.” All related legislative actions at the federal level shall require a demonstration of fiscal responsibility, and to the degree that they may also require a reasonable level of temporary debt to be absorbed, they shall also provide for a specific schedule and methodology of repayment. Accordingly, barring any exception associated with a national emergency, the federal budget shall be tied and restricted to an agreed percentage of the Nation’s prior-year Gross Domestic Product, and the definition of GDP shall be prohibited from changing absent a full debate and vote to so amend within the House of Representatives. All other economic decisions that influence the economic health of our Nation shall be reserved to the People or to the States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, respectively.”

What does this simple statement accomplish?

First: It establishes a discernible metric against which legislative actions can be measured. If a bill does not clearly and specifically provide for “the common Defence (sic)” or the “general Welfare” of the United States, it does not even make it to the floor of a Chamber for a vote. The federal government is not otherwise authorized to create debts for which it may “lay and collect Taxes, Imposts and Excises.”

This mitigates the influence of lobbyist money and eliminates the political practice of creating federal programs that only inure to the benefit of narrow constituencies in the hope that such constituencies will remain loyal to a particular Party (i.e., the creation of legislation that is favorable to factions that may represent a particular industry, demographic, or socio-economic group that traditionally votes along a specific Party line). The Constitution does not provide for such favoritism and every official who is elected to federal office is required to “defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Next: Let’s consider what happens if “all related legislative actions at the federal level shall require a demonstration of fiscal responsibility, and to the degree that they may also require a reasonable level of temporary debt to be absorbed, they shall also provide for a specific schedule and methodology of repayment.”

This mandates that bills presented to Congress shall first be vetted upon grounds that demonstrate their fiscal responsibility. The CBO needs to independently test bill-related assumptions rather than simply accept them. This precludes false assumptions from driving advantageous cost projections for major programs just to facilitate their passage only to later determine that the actual application of such laws will come at a much higher price.

It also permits the intelligent assumption of debt. It is naïve to suggest that all debt is “bad.” In fact, it is difficult to imagine a scenario in which a country of the size of the United States would operate without debt.

Conversely, the federal government needs to operate on a fiscally sound basis. When it enters into debt, it must have a plan to retire that debt in a timely manner. Allowing it to be built on a generational basis is irresponsible.

Thomas Paine once said, “If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my children may have peace.” We should apply the same sentiment to debt. Before our Nation enters into debt, it must have “a specific schedule and methodology of repayment” incorporated into any associated legislation.

Sunset provisions should also be utilized to preclude programs, which are otherwise necessary and proper, from becoming perpetual. Much of our Nation’s debt is associated with programs that have outlived their purpose and damaged our society by creating a dependent sense of entitlement. As a result, we deepen our commitment to a status quo that no longer is relevant to our reality or that inhibits us from escaping it.

Moving on: “…barring any exception associated with a national emergency, the federal budget shall be tied and restricted to an agreed percentage of the Nation’s prior-year Gross Domestic Product, and the definition of GDP shall be prohibited from changing absent a full debate and vote to so amend within the House of Representatives.”

The previous command for the federal government to operate with “fiscal responsibility” requires that it be structured to manage its affairs within the context of a budget. Congress has become too accustomed to using Continuing Resolutions to circumvent its responsibility to pass a budget, so let’s take that option away by creating a formulaic approach.

To accomplish this, we need to settle upon a relatively fixed definition of Gross Domestic Product; not one that can be tweaked by any given Administration to produce favorable results, but rather one that is cast in stone unless fully debated by the Representatives of the People and amended by vote.

Next: We need to establish a percentage of prior-year GDP that represents a reasonable level of funding for our federal government. The use of prior-year GDP is a concession to the fact that we cannot accurately predict the current year’s GDP.

In any event, it ties the budget to the rising or falling tides of our Nation’s fortunes. If the federal government wants more operating capital, it needs to craft legislation that inures to the benefit of our Country’s economy and, correspondingly, to each of us as citizens.

Given the annually fixed nature of the budgetary restriction, our elected officials will have to begin to engineer a government that operates more efficiently and effectively. If it wants to create new programs, it must retire or restructure existing ones. This will force the federal government to intelligently assess its priorities.

While our new economic policy provides an “escape value” in the form of any “national emergency,” such exceptions shall be limited to catastrophic circumstances such as wars or cataclysmic natural disasters. Programs, which are necessary to maintain a particular Party’s power by keeping it in the good graces of a funding or voting block that historically favors it, may constitute an emergency for the Party but not one for the Nation.

There is also no need to demand that the budget be balanced because there is already a relatively obscure law that mandates it (see Public Law 95-435 as it amends 22 USC 286). Congress is either ignorant of this or has simply chosen to ignore it. By capping the budget, we force the issue.

For those who fear that all the “do good” policies that Congress has been keen to fund in the past will go away: They may; then again, they may not. However, it will be more directly within the purview of the People as those programs will necessarily have to be vetted by the States or addressed directly by the People within the context of the private sector.

That is why “All other economic decisions that influence the economic health of our Nation shall be reserved to the People or to the States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, respectively.”

This economic policy does not take away any constitutionally based authority that Congress has to pass laws nor does it emasculate the Executive Branch’s authority or diminish its responsibility to administer such laws. It merely accentuates the responsibilities and authorities that the Constitution provides for each Branch and defines parameters that prevent an ongoing abuse of discretion. Doesn’t that sound like a better approach; one that is worthy of the United States; one that might allow us to announce that we once again are the world’s largest economy? Think about it.

(Part 2 of this series will provide some specific actions that can be taken to revive our economy and restore integrity to it.)

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

__________

FREEDOM: What is the true ‘Common Core’ of Education? (Part 2)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 25, 2014 – The United States federal government spent approximately $141 billion on public education in fiscal 2014, yet test scores continued to fall in our K-12 schools and tuition continued to rise in our institutes of higher education. Additionally, vocational training remained relatively stagnant. Rather than throw more money at the problem, perhaps we should try to identify the root causes of the problems and try to fix them. That would be the “smart” thing to do.

Part 1 of this two-part series (FREEDOM: U.S. Education Policy gets a Failing Grade) established the following education policy statement. In Part 2, we will review a few examples of how that policy could improve student performance, reduce costs, and contribute in a meaningful way to other aspects of our society.

The first step is to identify the purpose of education. In that regard, Wikipedia actually provides better insight than the U.S. Department of Education, which interestingly does not provide a definition for the word “education” in its otherwise extensive glossary. According to Wikipedia:

“Education… is a form of learning in which the knowledge, skills, and habits of a group of people are transferred from one generation to the next through teaching, training, or research. Education frequently takes place under the guidance of others but may also be autodidactic. Any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts may be considered educational. Education is commonly divided into stages such as preschool, primary school, secondary school, and then college, university or apprenticeship.”

If we distill that into a mission statement, it might look like this:

“The purpose of education is to provide individuals with an equal opportunity to attain the knowledge, skills, and habits that are necessary to achieve their goals and to function in and contribute to society in a positive way.”

The requirement to provide an “equal opportunity” forces us to address the disparities that remain in place and only serve to reinforce socioeconomic differences generationally. As was touched upon in Part 1, if we actually provide an “equal opportunity,” we will no longer be able “to mask our political failure to provide such an educational environment with programs such as Affirmative Action.”

Adding points to one’s college application score only affirms our failure to provide a K-12 education of equivalent quality for all of our children. It becomes an even greater disgrace when the solution is applied linearly to all students on the basis of race regardless of their actual socio-economic status and the charade must cease.

Next, in a society that is progressively broadening the concept of “choice” in a manner that is actually consistent with several tenets of the Constitution as well as two of the unalienable rights described by the Declaration of Independence’s (i.e., “Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”), it is interesting to observe how many of the same proponents argue against “choice” when it comes to education. Rather than limit school “choice” for what appears to be a politically motivated reason (i.e., pandering to a particular constituency), we should find ways to expand it. To do otherwise is to reserve “choice” to only those who can afford it.

There is no reason that those who otherwise favor a “redistribution of wealth” should deny the poor the right to have tax dollars redistributed in a manner that assures an equal opportunity to receive a quality education. It might allow the poor to break the cycle of dependence that otherwise plagues them.

The term “voucher” should not be a non sequitur to an intelligent discussion of providing access to competitive education systems for all those who would like to explore them. Lotteries are an unconscionable way to extract revenue in lieu of taxes; they are an even more abysmal way of limiting access to educational alternatives. If we expand competition within the education sector, we are likely to experience innovative improvements that can become adopted “best practices.”

For those who are committed to the paradigm of protecting union jobs for teachers before preserving the mission of education, here is a hint: Expanded educational facilities generally create job opportunities. Just as unions exist in other private sector industries, there is no empirical reason they should not be able to penetrate private sector education; that is, unless they lose focus on the mission of education.

School bond issues used to pass with regularity. Now, they face an uphill battle. Why?

Could it be because public school administrations have grown disproportionately, and teachers’ unions have become perceived to place compensation and benefits above the best interests of the students? The latter spends millions of dollars in most States on political advertising and lobbying. Perhaps if those dollars were returned to the teachers, compensation would not be quite the issue it appears to be today.

Conversely, teachers play a critical role in our society. Objectively, they should be more highly compensated. Unfortunately, support for that premise will be difficult to garner until academic performance begins to rise and every student gains access to a high-quality K-12 education. Perhaps if merit were the metric instead of tenure, performance would improve, and resistance would begin to wane. Again, it should be a matter of how well a teacher is fulfilling the mission of education.

It should also be noted that the mission of education does not distinguish between academic offerings and vocational training. Both avenues provide an “opportunity to attain the knowledge, skills, and habits that are necessary to achieve their goals and to function in and contribute to society in a positive way.”

Unfortunately, as union membership has declined in recent years, the availability of apprenticeship programs has also plummeted. There are at least two solutions to this issue: (1) increase union membership by returning union focus to the employees rather than political endeavors, and (2) expand vocational training within the public and private sectors.

With regard to the latter, community colleges could begin to offer trade-oriented training as a certificate program to help close the gap between unfilled job opportunities and the unemployed. Private training organizations could follow the same path. Perhaps federal funding could be structured to underwrite some or all of the cost since it would ultimately reduce unemployment (an exposure for the Government) and reintroduce people into the tax base once they gain employment (an opportunity for the Government). This type of approach would be particularly effective if it were limited to skills that represent long-term employment opportunities.

Next, let’s discuss costs with regard to higher education.

In recent years, college tuition has been increasing at a much higher rate than inflation. Many students graduate with a significant level of debt; some of whom shirk the responsibility of repaying their loans, which might be an indication that the “habit” portion of education is missing. This raises two questions: (1) Is there a way to reduce the cost of tuition; and (2) Is there a way to reduce the amount of student loans that end in default?

With respect to tuition, it is worth noting that tuition represents a cost to the students but revenue to their colleges or universities. These institutes have to cover their cost of operation (i.e., “default” is generally not an option).

Part of the cost with which these institutes are burdened comes with the “strings” that are often tied to federal and/or State funding. For example, monies may only be available if the institute hires employees who are often tied to social reengineering rather than educational endeavors. However, when the related funding is exhausted, the employees remain as does their related cost.

Diversity Officers are an example. They are sometimes a required component to secure federal or State funding.

Interestingly enough, if our K-12 schools were doing their jobs correctly, we would no longer have to mandate diversity. It would be a naturally occurring condition if our children were given “an equal opportunity to attain the knowledge, skills, and habits that are necessary to achieve their goals and to function in and contribute to society in a positive way.” The fact that we deem it necessary to establish a function that monitors and facilitates diversity is again a reflection of our failure to modify “habits” in our children’s most formative years.

State and federal funds should be singularly focused on providing the quality of education necessary for students to “achieve their goals and to function in and contribute to society in a positive way.” If we fix the problem in K-12, we will no longer need to layer additional costs upon our educational institutes to achieve the same social objective.

Correspondingly, college students have a role to play in reducing costs that otherwise contribute to higher tuition. They need to refocus their attention on the educational aspect of their college experience.

In recent years, college administrations have become enamored with “rankings.” They compete to attract freshman and graduate students who bring high standardized test scores with them (e.g., ACTs, SATs, GMATs, etc.). Unfortunately, they often invest in superficial resources that have little to do with educational content in order to create a more attractive environment to lure such students.

As a result, many universities now feature five-star spas and recreation centers, complete with rock climbing walls, massage facilities, etc. Student unions no longer host old furniture, a few televisions, and a Ping-Pong table or two. They now resemble the type of lounges one might otherwise associate with a resort hotel.

This is not to begrudge a modest upgrade, but rather to underscore the sense of expectation that has been established; an expectation that has a cost associated with it. These non-academic facilities and services have fixed and variable costs associated with them. Either tuition must rise to cover these costs or the funds that might otherwise be directed toward academic excellence must be applied to them. Neither option makes sense.

If students were to eschew these non-academic luxuries and make their decisions based upon the academic experience their college can deliver, they would see their tuition costs decline or their educational alternatives expand. Our institutes of higher learning have simply created a disassociated expectation that has been embraced by the market they serve (i.e., students). In turn, students might change their expectations if they were taught to recognize that they only receive a return on the part of their investment that actually goes towards education.

Now, let’s reintroduce the concept of merit.

Several countries have an interesting approach in this regard. Their “state” supported schools represent their finest educational resources. In the United States, our private universities tend to hold that distinction.

Access to our private universities is generally reserved for the rich, who can afford it, or for the poor, who qualify for assistance. In these other countries, everyone has the same opportunity to matriculate at their finest universities. This includes middle-income students who, in the United States, cannot afford to attend equivalent universities but whose families make too much money to allow them to qualify for assistance.

These other countries accomplish this in a uniquely simple way: They base access upon merit. It does not matter whether a student is rich, middle-income, or poor; Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, etc.; male or female. It only matters that they have applied themselves during their preparatory education (the equivalent of K-12 here), gotten good grades, and earned outstanding scores on their international exams. If students achieve these goals, their country happily funds their education at the finest institutes available; effectively rewarding academic excellence.

It is worth noting that there is absolutely no discrimination associated with this approach. Every child, regardless of his or her background, has an equal opportunity to achieve their highest potential. Isn’t that the goal for which our educational system should be striving?

If we wish to “sway” interests, we can also provide additional scholarships and grants in areas that will improve our Nation’s global competitiveness in the coming years (i.e., incentivizing students to pursue degrees related to areas such as healthcare, renewable energy, etc.). In that regard, it would be easy to create a tiered funding mechanism that would provide every student with the opportunity to exercise a level of self-determination and to learn the nexus between effort and reward.

With respect to loan programs, we need to instill a sense of obligation. The rate of default continues to rise.

Hopefully, our K-12 education process can be restructured to create a higher sense of responsibility among future generations. However, we can begin to mitigate the issue of defaults without waiting.

The traditional loan repayment schedule represents a 1:1 ratio of dollars to debt. The option is to honor the loan or default (with or without consequences). In election years, politicians like to “dangle” interest rates in front of students to attract votes. However, this does little to address the real problem.

What if we adopted a “sweat equity” approach that provided for accelerated repayment based upon a tiered “forgiveness” approach that benefited our Nation?

For example, we could offer the following “dollars-to-debt” repayment structure (as a hypothetical; more formally, the ratios should be indexed to the projected value they represent):

This approach allows the decision to reside with the individual (i.e., providing reinforcement of the concept of “responsibility”) while encouraging the consideration of at least transitory roles in some of our Nation’s most challenging and critical careers.

Vocational schools and institutes of higher education can also explore the well-proven option of creating cooperative education (“Co-Op”) programs. These programs provide flexible academic/work schedules (alternating academic semesters with work sections) that allow students to gain real-world experience while attending school.

It is a “cooperative” relationship between the academic institute and private sector partners that benefits all parties concerned. Co-op students earn income during their work sections with which they can fully pay tuition to their schools (or at least minimize debt). In turn, companies gain access to a cost-effective resource (i.e., the student) and have the opportunity to observe the student in a real-world environment related to the student’s chosen field of study, which may lead to permanent employment after graduation.

These are but a few of the ways we can improve the system of education within the United States. There are many more if we put our minds together, learn from others, and teach ourselves how to stay focused on the mission. Hopefully, we will graduate to that level of thinking someday soon.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

__________

FREEDOM: U.S. Education Policy gets a failing grade (Part 1)

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 21, 2014 – The United States public education system needs to be taught a lesson. Skyrocketing costs plus plummeting test scores on international exams do not equal a successful educational program regardless of how we might be instructed to do the math. We need to develop an education policy that intelligently addresses the challenge our Nation faces in assuring that its future generations remain competitive in a global economy.

According to the most recent statistics compiled by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the United States spends more on student education than any other nation on a per capita basis (just over $15,170 including K-12, college and vocational training). This ranks high even on a percentage-of-GDP basis among developed nations (trailing Denmark, which leads in that category, by only 0.7 percent).

In return, our Nation currently ranks 18th among industrialized nations in its performance on international exams. Perhaps more alarmingly, our 15-year-old students ranked 31st in math and 23rd in science according to the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) testing.

Education represents an inherently complex issue that includes components such as curricula, facilities, teaching resources, and even evolving elements of social psychology. It deserves more than political platitudes that suggest there will be “no child left behind” or that the simple stroke of a pen will make college education affordable for everyone.

We also need to craft solutions that cure the disease rather than mask the symptoms. Too often, we have reinforced a faltering education system through the imposition of failed principles (no pun intended) in the name of political correctness.

To help build a platform upon which these issues can be intelligently discussed, we need to address the first “E” in The FREEDOM Process™, which stands for Education policy.

As we have with our Foreign and Resource policies, we need to approach the development of an Education policy from a pragmatic perspective rather than a political one. It must provide equal access and qualitative improvement while maintaining fiscal responsibility and be established with deference to the Constitution of the United States.

Keeping those parameters in mind, let us create a succinct education policy statement that can be clearly articulated, viably executed, and consistently applied; one that reflects the values of our Republic and can bring equal, affordable access to our future generations and improve their ability to compete in a global economy.

The Education Policy statement of The FREEDOM PROCESS™

“Consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution, the United States shall develop and maintain a globally competitive system of public education that includes primary and secondary schools, vocational training programs, and institutes of higher education. Each such entity shall be focused on providing equal access to all who qualify and demonstrate the ongoing commitment and ability to succeed. Curricula will be reviewed and modified to keep pace with market demands as we prepare future generations to contribute to society; technological advancements will be deployed to improve access, create a more uniform quality of educational alternatives, and lower the cost of delivery through a more distributed form of education; and progress will be measured among both students and faculty on a basis of merit. An emphasis will be placed on setting high academic and vocational expectations and providing the opportunity and necessary resources to achieve them.”

As we have with respect to the previous policies we have addressed in this series, we can gain an understanding of how this education policy statement might be applied in practice if we parse its components.

Consistent with the responsibilities and authority granted to it under the Constitution, the United States shall develop and maintain a globally competitive system of public education that includes primary and secondary schools, vocational training programs, and institutes of higher education.

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides the basis for federal involvement in the public education system. One of its critical legislative objectives is to “provide for… the general Welfare of the United States.” Certainly, offering our children and young adults access to a quality education that affords them the opportunity to become self-sustaining members of their communities who can contribute in a meaningful way to our Nation’s future and compete in a global economy inures to the “the general Welfare of the United States.”

This does not preclude a private education system (or systems) from operating in parallel with the public system. It simply assures that all young citizens have the opportunity to receive a quality education regardless of their socio-economic background or other distinguishing characteristics or preferences. As the second sentence of the education policy affirms: “Each such entity (K-12 schools, vocational training centers, colleges and universities) shall be focused upon providing equal access to all who qualify and demonstrate the ongoing commitment and ability to succeed.”

Correspondingly, we cannot continue to mask our political failure to provide such an educational environment with programs such as Affirmative Action. We can no longer permit disparity to exist with regard to facilities and teaching resources in the formative grades K-12 only to disguise that practice by ostensibly “evening things out” by awarding college entrance preferences to those who have been knowingly denied an equal education. Otherwise, we are condoning the discriminatory practice.

We need to solve the resource problems that plague our current K-12 system of public education. One solution would be to allocate federal assistance on the basis of need. If property taxes continue to be used as the dominant method of funding public education, then federal funds should be distributed in a manner that is inversely proportional to the comparative tax base of each public school. This would provide each school with relatively equivalent facilities and other tangible teaching resources rather than perpetuating the present condition of “haves” and “have nots,” and it can be accomplished through the use of categorical grants (as opposed to block grants).

Categorical grants can also be used to direct the use of federal funds more stringently with respect to vocational schools, colleges, and universities. Rather than being used to dictate social policies as they sometimes are today, they should be restricted to programs that have a direct relationship to the educational content (i.e., research grants, academic scholarships, needs-based assistance, etc.). States and private entities can fund non-educational content and investments if they choose.

The federal government’s core responsibility is to ensure that every young citizen has an equal opportunity to receive a quality education. Students also bear a responsibility. They have the freedom to choose their own areas of interest and the degree to which they apply themselves.

The education policy statement continues: “Curricula will be reviewed and modified to keep pace with market demands as we prepare future generations to contribute to society…”

Said another way: Times change and our approach to education must change with them.

Sixteen countries regularly outperform the United States on international exams in grades K-12. It is time to study those countries to determine commonalities that contribute to their success and then replicate those best practices here. We should also study those areas and schools in our own country that exhibit superior performance and replicate those best practices as well.

Similarly, we need to create curricula based on achieving global competitiveness rather than political correctness. There needs to be a reemphasis in grades K-12 on core subjects such as reading, writing and mathematics; areas in which we seem to be falling behind.

Logic, ethics, general communication skills, and civics should also be introduced into the curricula as each is proven to contribute to the development of critical thinking, which represents one of the greatest identified skill gaps among graduates (even at the college level). Civics offers added value: It allows us to provide an understanding of the basis upon which this Nation was founded to those who will lead it in the future as well as to educate every future voter of their responsibility to become informed and involved in civic issues.

Additionally, our K-12 students would benefit from exposure to life skills and vocational options. Not everyone is destined to pursue higher education, yet everyone does need to learn how to read labels, balance a checkbook, understand loan programs, and make better choices with regard to diet, exercise, the environment, etc. In turn, these programs reinforce basic principles of mathematics, science, etc.

The education policy then provides that “technological advancements will be deployed to improve access, create a more uniform quality of educational alternatives, and lower the cost of delivery through a more distributed form of education…”

We continue to impose “brick-and-mortar” and “classroom” restrictions to our perception of “school” with respect to K-12. Meanwhile, universities have proven that online education actually offers certain educational benefits (i.e., subject retention, etc.) while lowering the cost of delivery. It also allows students to learn at their own pace rather than the metered pace of a classroom environment. Why not expand upon this concept?

The use of online services and other advanced communication methodologies also provides for a more rapid deployment of best practices. For example: The best lectures on a particular subject could be captured in one location and rebroadcast throughout the country. They would also be archived and could be accessed at each student’s or class’ convenience. Suddenly, every school would share the best teaching resources available without regard to the economic realities of their specific location.

Note how this distributive approach to education addresses the three most fundamental criteria for providing an equal opportunity to every student: Access to the material and instruction; the highest quality of content; and the lowest cost of delivery (including not having to replicate the level of expertise).

The next element of our education policy asserts that “progress will be measured among both students and faculty on a basis of merit.” It acknowledges that the real world is a competitive environment and to prepare for it, one must be exposed to competition. This axiom applies to both those who teach and those who learn.

From a teaching perspective, a good starting point might be to require some period of real-world experience as opposed to migrating directly from the receiving end of pedagogy to the delivery end. We form our belief structures from our own personal experience supplemented by the experience of others. If one has limited experience and is required to embrace the beliefs of his or her mentors, it is the mentors’ beliefs that are perpetuated. If those beliefs are never “tested,” they are “handed down” by each generation; perhaps being diluted or misconstrued over time.

This can happen when the next generation of teachers is “primed” by their mentors/professors. If the teachers do not “test” the hypotheses with which they are indoctrinated in college, they may never challenge them. As a result, false premises may be inadvertently reinforced.

Why not require teachers to experience life for themselves before they are presented to future generations as a mentor? A three-to-five-year “apprenticeship” period, during which future teachers serve within other private or public sector roles, might do wonders to break the current paradigm that seems to inhibit critical thinking and diversity of thought (particularly with respect to our college campuses). Who knows what innovative thinking this might spawn?

Correspondingly, the teaching profession is underfunded on a variety of levels. It is of critical importance to our society and deserves to have its compensation model revised on an upward basis. However, just as in other facets of the public and private sector, the teaching profession needs to become performance-based. Rather than a tenured system that too often protects and preserves mediocrity (or worse), why not reward teachers and professors on a basis of merit?

Any measurement of merit should also have one dominant component: The ability to help students achieve their highest potential. What if we were to develop individual and aggregate measures of student performance; standards which measured them against their peers and against themselves?

Students need to experience competition as well. The politically correct practice of not wanting to damage a student’s esteem places that student at a decided disadvantage as they enter their adult life. Children in other parts of the world are being challenged. Those children are learning to compete at an early age; not in a manner that diminishes their confidence but rather in a way that strengthens it. Why not return to that model?

This brings us to the final statement within our education policy: “An emphasis will be placed on setting high academic and vocational expectations and providing the opportunity and necessary resources to achieve them.”

While it makes for great campaign rhetoric, promising a college education for everyone is both disingenuous and disrespectful. Students are individuals with a different range of talents and interests. They should not be made to feel demeaned in any way if they choose to pursue a path that does not involve higher education. According to another famous document, one of their unalienable rights is the “pursuit of Happiness” which, by implication, suggests that they have the right to define what Happiness means to them.

Correspondingly, those who ostensibly have the talent and interest to pursue higher education or vocational training should be challenged with high expectations in their chosen fields. If we took the time to study the educational systems of those countries that routinely outperform us, we would find the setting of high expectations to be a common theme. As Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe once said, “Treat people as if they were what they ought to be and you will help them become what they are capable of becoming.”

Our system introduces many distractions into the educational environment and celebrates many activities in a more public manner than it does academic or vocational excellence. Perhaps if we applaud outstanding performance in that regard as openly as we cheer for our favorite high school and collegiate teams, we might witness a pronounced shift in scholastic and occupational focus.

This leads to an additional discussion of educational alternatives as well as reforming the scholarship and student loan approach that is suffocating higher education in the United States. There is a myriad of ways to solve these problems, but they will be reserved for Part 2 of this series on education policy.

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, A Civil Assessment, in the Communities Digital News (CDN).

__________

Author: testsite_tjohara

Congress’s role in torturing the People

An ‘Unspeakable’ Way to Return the Republic to the People

The jury is still out on the impact of Ferguson

FREEDOM: The Unfounded and Unfunded Myths of Entitlement

FREEDOM: Is ‘Government Efficiency’ an oxymoron?

FREEDOM: A Defense Policy that can be a Weapon for Peace

FREEDOM: Fixing the US economy for more than just the rich (Part 2)

FREEDOM: Not having an Economic Policy is expensive (Part 1)

FREEDOM: What is the true ‘Common Core’ of Education? (Part 2)

FREEDOM: U.S. Education Policy gets a failing grade (Part 1)

Services

HEADQUARTERS

email CONTACT