Author: testsite_tjohara

POLITICAL INCONGRUITIES: From Bergdahl to Benghazi

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., June 2, 2014 – The United States’ military commitment to “no man left behind” was briefly resuscitated from its politically-weakened condition when Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was retrieved from the Taliban-aligned Haqqani terrorist network in return for five members of the Taliban who had been held as prisoners in Guantanamo. The incongruities of Sgt. Bergdahl’s captivity and release accentuate the political maneuverings of our Nation’s major Parties and the pendulum of irrational action that swings between them.

The fact pattern surrounding the return of America’s last prisoner of war is particularly interesting.

Sgt. Bergdahl went missing on June 30, 2009. His official status was temporarily “Duty Status Whereabouts Unknown” (DUSTWUN). After he appeared in a Haqqani video three days later, his status was changed to “Missing-Captured,” which it remained until his release.

You will note that his rank changed during his captivity. He was promoted to Specialist on June 10, 2010, and to Sergeant on June 12, 2011. As a Missing-Captured, he was entitled to be considered for all promotions for which he was eligible (along with all associated pay and allowances). The significance of this should become obvious later.

The Haqqani network originally demanded the release of 21 Afghan prisoners along with Aafia Siddiqui and $1 million. One could argue that the $1 million was a tribute to Dr. Evil, but most people would agree with characterizing the 21 prisoners and Aafia Siddiqui as serious terrorists.

This ultimatum eventually eroded to a demand for the five Taliban operatives who ultimately were traded for Sgt. Bergdahl:

Mohammad Fazl, the Taliban’s former Deputy Defense Minister;
Abdul Haq Wasiq, the Taliban’s former Deputy Minister of Intelligence
Norullah Noori, a former interim Provincial Governor who, along with two other Governors, is accused of being responsible for alleged massacres of Shi’ite and Uzbek civilians;
Khairullah Khairkhwa, a former Taliban official and Governor of Herat; and
Mohammad Nabi Omari, who allegedly admitted serving Al Qaeda and/or the Taliban in a non-military capacity prior to 9/11 but who also claimed to be a loyal supporter of Afghan President Karzai as well as a covert operative for U.S. Intelligence.

The interesting component of this deal is that it appears to have been on the table since 2011. The only “significant” change is that the Qatar government has promised to receive these individuals and require them to stay with family members in Qatar for a minimum of one year. If that was the only “sticking point” and it still took three years to negotiate the exchange, we should be very concerned about how our nuclear negotiations are going with Iran.

To complicate matters, there are nearly as many stories about how and why Sgt. Bergdahl went missing as there are people in the exchange.

There are those who argue that Sgt. Bergdahl was a deserter. Perhaps that might explain why no attempt was made to extract him from his Haqqani captors. Then again, it is difficult to reconcile two promotions in rank with someone who was believed to have been a deserter.

The Taliban claimed that Sgt. Bergdahl was drunk when it captured him. Yet, in the first video that was released following his capture, Sgt. Bergdahl asserted that he had fallen behind his unit while on patrol. Why would the Taliban allow him to make that claim in a video if its story was true?

Others have suggested that Sgt. Bergdahl was mentally unstable and simply wandered away. On this week’s Face the Nation, CBS News’ National Security Correspondent, David Martin conjectured, “He (Bergdahl) went walkabout. He just walked off his base without his weapon, without telling anybody. I mean, he has a lot of explaining to do about how he was captured. He has some idea about being able to walk across the breadth of Afghanistan. And, you know, it was a bad mistake.”

This theory appears to be based upon a fellow soldier’s comment that Sgt. Bergdahl once said, “If this deployment is lame, I’m just going to walk off into the mountains of Pakistan.” It also appears to be somewhat irresponsible reporting since it ignores the other possibilities.

Whose version is accurate? Only Sgt. Bergdahl and a few members of the Taliban know for sure.

With this background, let’s explore the myriad of incongruities with which Democratic and Republican leaders have positioned this story as compared to how they view the attacks on the consulate and annex in Benghazi, which left four Americans dead.

Republican leaders, such as Sen. John McCain, have been quite vocal about the Obama Administration’s failure to honor the principle of “no one left behind” in the case of Benghazi. They excoriated the Administration for failing to authorize any attempt to save those who were under attack at the consulate. Yet, many of those same individuals have been critical of the Obama Administration for applying that principle of “no one left behind” to Sgt. Bergdahl.

In the latter case, they distinguish the circumstances by saying, “The United States should not negotiate with terrorists.” They claim that the Haqqani network is a terrorist organization and that the five released “detainees” are terrorists as well.

The latter point is particularly interesting because Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel stated on Meet the Press: “We didn’t negotiate with terrorists. Sgt. Bergdahl is a prisoner of war, that’s a normal process in getting your prisoners back.” It should be noted that our military abandoned the use of the term “prisoner of war” in the year 2000. Perhaps someone should tell Sec. Hagel.

Semantics aside: Should the principle of “no one left behind” be objectively or subjectively applied? If left to the latter, political influence can play a nefarious role. No less of an authority than former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says so.

In an excerpt from her soon-to-be-released book, Hard Choices, former-Sec. Clinton states that a “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics and the media” exists with respect to Benghazi. Going forward, it appears that she intends to occupy the moral high ground when she writes: “I will not be a part of a political slugfest on the backs of dead Americans. It’s just plain wrong, and it’s unworthy of our great country. Those who insist on politicizing the tragedy will have to do so without me.”

Of course, 2012 was a different time. It was an election year. Some might suggest former Sec. Clinton was guilty of “politicizing the tragedy” when she was the first to assert that the attack was predicated upon a spontaneous reaction to an anti-Islamic Internet video. Is it possible that she was referring to her own actions when she referenced the “regrettable amount of misinformation, speculation, and flat-out deceit by some in politics”?

While Ms. Clinton ostensibly accepts responsibility for the associated loss of life, she quickly buffers that position by pointing to “the heartbreaking human stakes of every decision we make.” She also takes the liberty to blame the misinformation on our Intelligence community; suggesting that the video scenario was the best information they had at the time.

That explanation might be credible had Robert Lovell, a retired Brigadier General, not testified to the contrary before Congress. Ret. Brig. Gen. Lovell, who was serving as Deputy Director for Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate J-2 for AFRICOM at the time of the attack, testified, “… what we did know quite early on was that this was a hostile action. This was no demonstration gone terribly awry.”

To protect its Presidential nominee in 2012, the Democratic Party had to bury the principle of “no one left behind” beneath a storyline that remains as implausible today as it was then. However, with the Veterans Administration crisis hovering over President Obama’s head, it may have been time to trot the principal back out to demonstrate how committed his Administration is to every member of our military; besides, it’s another election year… and times change.

In his announcement of the “prisoner” exchange, President Obama even referred to the principle of “no one left behind” as an “ironclad promise.” One can only wonder why that was not the driving force behind his Administration’s reaction to the consulate attack on September 11, 2012.

Of course, the Republican Party, which has been championing every kind of investigation of Benghazi except a non-partisan one, now finds itself on the other side of the “no one left behind” argument. Where has the outrage of the Party been during the last five years when it comes to freeing Sgt. Bergdahl? Where is the conservative support for his return to the United States today other than from an obligatory perspective?

Instead, we are witnessing Republican indignation over the release of the five members of the Taliban who were required to make the exchange. After all, “we don’t negotiate with terrorists.”

While Sec. Hagel’s “prisoner of war” rhetoric may be dated, isn’t his theory somewhat correct? Aren’t we at war in Afghanistan? Wasn’t Sgt. Bergdahl stationed there as a member of our military? Must we always send a S.E.A.L. Team to attempt a dangerous rescue of Americans held in captivity to feel conservatively fulfilled?

If we did elect to pursue the latter course of action, the Republican Party might be further torn. Should it be delighted by the free market aspect of Hollywood’s inevitable portrayal of the mission, or should it be appalled by the blatant political exploitation it would inherently assign to any such movie that was produced while a Democrat served as President?

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (a Republican Member of the House and an Iraq and Afghanistan War veteran) raised other concerns on NBC’s Meet the Press. He said, “I’m going to celebrate him [Bergdahl] coming home, [but] the release of five mid- to high-level Taliban is shocking to me, especially not coming to Congress (referencing the Administration’s decision to execute the exchange without first informing appropriate Congressional committees as is required by law). You now are going to have five people on the ground targeting American troops, the Afghan troops, and the Afghan people. There are a lot of questions that need to be asked.”

It is not the first time the Bush or Obama Administrations have released “enemy combatants” and some have returned to terrorist activities. While records are scarce and the exact numbers are difficult to corroborate, approximately 700 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Only about 150 remain. Do the math.

With respect to the issue of “notice:” Selectively choosing whether to comply with Federal law does not seem to be a barrier to this Administration. It has aggressively decided which laws it will and will not apply (including elements of the Constitution). It will be interesting to see if this latest disregard for the law is just a test. Perhaps the Obama Administration is just trying to empty Guantanamo since it has failed to deliver on its 2008 campaign promise to close it.

Then again, maybe the hawkish Republicans need not worry about terrorists returning to the battlefield. Given the President’s propensity to use drones, maybe the released detainees are merely new targets.

Doesn’t the American public have the right to demand some degree of continuity from the Parties other than their routine disagreement? Consistency seems to be almost as foreign a concept to our elected officials as is the Constitution.

In the meantime, let’s put our unwavering allegiance to the concept of “no one left behind” in perspective. The Joint POW/MIA Accounting is still looking for about 83,436 U.S. service members. While the vast majority are from World War II, 1,666 are attributable to Vietnam, 7,957 to Korea, and 126 to Cold War. We may need to restock Guantanamo.

__________

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).

Read more

MEMORIAL DAY: A time to honor their sacrifice with progress

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., May 26, 2014 – There are at least two common traits among those whom Memorial Day is meant to honor: They pledged an oath of allegiance to defend our Nation; and they exhibited the depth of their conviction through the sacrifice of their lives. While there may not be any adequate way to demonstrate our profound gratitude, we nonetheless should try… and not just on this day of flying flags and attending brief memorial services… but rather every day that we enjoy the freedom we have purchased with their blood.

With only minor difference, every officer and enlisted member of our military begins his or her service with the following Oath: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; (along with a faithful discharge of any associated duties). So help me God.”

These Oaths have only slightly changed since the time of the Revolutionary War. However, their general intent has remained the same. Our commitment to remembering those who have paid the ultimate price on our behalf should remain as resolute.

One symbolic gesture on behalf of our Nation occurs when the President lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. Some might consider this to have degenerated into little more than a photo op, yet many still view it to be an appropriate display of respect and appreciation.

In recent history among former Presidents, only President Clinton has a perfect record. President George W. Bush can be excused for his only absence in 2002 as he commemorated the day at the Normandy American Cemetery in France where more than 9,000 of our military personnel are buried. Conversely, his father, President George H. W. Bush, never chose to participate in the ceremony.

Even President Ronald Reagan only attended four of the ceremonies. In fairness, he was recovering from a gunshot wound from an assassination attempt one year and in summit conferences two of the others (one in an attempt to end the Cold War with the Soviet Union).

President Obama missed the occasion in 2010 to spend the day in Chicago. He won’t make that mistake again. While his original schedule for today does not list it among his public appearances, we can expect him to surprise us with his attendance at Arlington National Cemetery as he returns from his surprise visit to Afghanistan. After all, it’s an election year.

Of course, symbolic gestures are nice, but material decisions are far more important. As our political environment has become more heated in recent years, our military personnel appear to have been disturbingly reduced to the status of pawns in the power game that is being played. Perhaps Global Warming isn’t as great a threat as the Political Scalding that is taking place. The former occurs at a relatively glacial pace, while the latter seems to occur at light speed.

Witness two current challenges: The administrative nightmare of the Veterans Administration; and the lack of a discernible foreign policy. Both of these examples have added to the count of those veterans who merit our remembrance on Memorial Day. Unfortunately, many of these deaths could have been prevented. The same can be said of those that otherwise might occur in the future.

Let’s examine the VA issue as an example.

The medical assistance element of the VA was used as a standard bearer for the efficiency and effectiveness of a single-payer healthcare system. We were told that VA hospitals were more efficient and effective than many of their counterparts in the private sector. While the effectiveness of the VA at the actual delivery of medical assistance is probably comparable to the private sector, the efficiency of the administrative aspect of the VA has now been seriously called into question.

As we now know, some administrators within the VA have been earning bonuses by inflating their performance efficiency. They have intentionally kept separate sets of books: One of patients who could be scheduled within the acceptable performance guidelines; and a second list of the patients who are actually in queue for an appointment but could not be scheduled within the required parameters. Had the administrators included all of the patients who were in the queue, their performance would have been deemed unacceptable. The unfortunate consequence is that some of the patients died while waiting to be placed on the “official” list.

How heinous is this? Try to imagine the outrage if this were to occur in any other segment of our Government.

For example: How would we respond if the Administration tried to report unemployment without including all those individuals who wanted to work but could not find jobs? What would happen if the Administration kept two sets of books: One which contained only the names of those individuals who were eligible (and filed) for unemployment compensation; and a second list of all those other individuals who actually wanted work but couldn’t find work and were ineligible for unemployment compensation? The unemployment percentage would skyrocket and those perceived to be in charge may not have been able to be re-elected. Okay, that’s a bad example.

As President Obama noted during a press conference last week, the Administration has known of the VA’s efficiency problems for a long time and has been working diligently on them. In his 2008 campaign then-Senator Obama even ran on the issue. He now boasts of how his Administration has greatly increased the funding of the VA.

This is a classic example of how our major Parties have a marked propensity to solve the wrong problem with the limited bag of tricks that lie within their Parties’ platforms. Democratic leaders like to address issues with profligate spending. When that myopic solution fails, they declare the problem to have been bigger than they initially were led to believe, and they assert they will further increase spending to resolve the issue.

Republican leaders like to address such issues with a nearly random approach to cutting costs; just pick a percentage to cut and see what happens. When this inevitably fails, they declare the problem to have been bigger than they initially were led to believe, and they assert they will further cut costs to resolve the issue.

What would happen if they honored our Veterans by actually defining the problem correctly? How can we most efficiently and effectively deliver the highest quality of health care to our Veterans without focusing on any collateral political ramifications?

For example: The VA is the second largest Department in the United States Government (second only to the Department of Defense, which serves as its feeder unit) with approximately 250,000 employees and contractors and a requested 2014 budget of $152.7 billion. While it encompasses a wide array of services, the majority of its budget is directed toward the services and infrastructure of its more than 1,700 “sites of care,” which include over 160 hospitals and 800 outpatient treatment centers.

What if that capital were deployed in a less infrastructure-intensive manner?

If the Affordable Care Act is anywhere near as “affordable” as we have been led to believe, why not simply fund the enrollment of our Veterans in an ACA Bronze Plan (with an opportunity to privately upgrade if they wished)? Then, guarantee any co-payment and deductible requirements that would otherwise be covered under VA regulations on the basis of service-connected disability.

This would expand the base of the ACA to make it more economically viable without adding any additional exposure to taxpayers. Correspondingly, the VA “sites of care” could either be liquidated or absorbed into the private sector.

This would provide a more expansive array of alternatives to our Veterans and dramatically lower the operating cost of the VA, which would inure to the taxpayers’ benefit. It would even placate the political needs of the Democratic Party by expanding the relevance of the ACA and those of the Republican Party by cutting costs within the VA while improving its efficiency.

Meanwhile, our surviving Veterans would have one less battle to fight in an attempt to save their lives; they would no longer have to fight with the VA.

Now that we’ve stimulated some thinking with respect to the VA, let’s explore how we could mitigate the real driver of Memorial Day: Our recurring insistence on intervening in the affairs of foreign nations, often without their consent. Our lack of a discernible Foreign Policy lies at the heart of the problem.

On March 20, 2012, I wrote an article for another publication entitled Foreign Policy: A Rational Approach for the U.S. The following is an excerpt from that column.

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

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

“What are the consequences of that simple policy statement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On this Memorial Day, let’s offer a prayer not only on behalf of those brave individuals who lost their lives defending our freedom but also on behalf of those who will needlessly lose theirs in the future if we do not begin to make more rational decisions.

__________

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).

Read more

Is there a political wildfire that needs to be put out?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., May 19, 2014 – The San Diego area recently made national headlines when it was ravaged by 10 wildfires. In an incredible display of courage and professional skill, firefighters and other first responders overcame strong Santa Ana winds and extremely arid conditions to battle the elements to a draw. The question is whether they will do as well against their next potential adversary; one that can be far more ruthless and cruel than anything Mother Nature can offer: Politicians running for office.

Just as there is a “Red Flag” warning posted when the conditions are ripe for wildfires, there should be a “Green Flag” warning posted in election years when elected officials are inclined to use firefighters and police officers as pawns in their political games to mask fiscal irresponsibility. The threat advisory should be extended to teachers as well as they are also subject to attack.

The reason our firefighters, police officers, and teachers are vulnerable to such abuse is because they are essential members of our society. The first responders keep us safe, while the educators help hone the fundamental skills of our future generations of leaders. Both groups add stability to our society and provide necessary services, which makes them the perfect target for politicians.

The game of high-stakes politics combines chicanery with fear. In an effort to distract attention from the root cause of our economic challenges, politicians are skilled at diverting our attention by sounding alarms that nearly lead us to panic.

How often have you heard politicians suggest that if a certain bond issue doesn’t pass or if taxes aren’t increased, the State will have no recourse other than to lay off firefighters, police officers, and teachers?

Have you ever wondered why no other less intrusive measures can be taken? Perhaps eliminating spendthrift programs that haven’t delivered upon expected results would be a good starting point. Reducing administrative staff might also be worth considering before cutting essential services. Restricting travel among our public officials to other States and countries might even be appropriate to curb waste although it is difficult to imagine how we could survive without those boondoggle junkets to senseless conventions and foreign lands.

However, that wouldn’t be “politics as usual,” and we wouldn’t feel threatened to capitulate to the demand for more money. No, it makes far more sense to suggest that the firefighters and police officers, who keep us safe, and the teachers, who instruct our children, have their jobs terminated if taxes can’t be raised and bond issues can’t be passed… at least it does to incumbents.

Of course, not every State will experience this ploy this year nor will every politician default to it. However, the odds rise with respect to the economic and political instability of the State (i.e., the greater the instability, the more likely we will be threatened with a reduction in essential services).

Let’s consider California as an example.

California is a microcosm of the United States. If it were a country, its GDP would rank eighth in the world; essentially putting it on par with the Russian Federation without having to annex Crimea to do it. While the Obama Administration has imposed economic sanctions upon Russia with regard to the latter issue, it need not take similar action to disrupt California’s financial performance because the Golden State has demonstrated the ability to curb its own growth without any outside assistance.

Of course, there are outside influences that are willing to help the cause. Texas Governor Rick Perry, looking theatrically studious in his new glasses, visited California apparently to go car shopping. He returned months later with Toyota… not a car, but the entire Toyota Motor Corporation’s U.S. Headquarters, which had resided in California since 1957. This followed a similar announcement by Occidental Petroleum Corporation in February of this year.

Even without Governor Perry’s help, California has been able to decimate its once proud economy.

Its unemployment is currently 7.8%, which is nearly 24% higher than the national average. It also boasts a budget deficit of approximately $70 billion.

Speaking of $70 billion: That is roughly what California spends on welfare (by far, the highest amount in the Nation). Its welfare program pays the equivalent to $11.59 per hour, which is more than President Obama’s proposed minimum wage increase of $10.10. As a result, almost 34% of our country’s welfare recipients reside in California even though the State only hosts 12% of our Nation’s population. Correspondingly, Healthcare and Social Assistance represent the second largest industry in the State according to the most recent Census.

Naturally, Government is California’s largest industry, with about 2.5 million employees. To fund that industry, the State spends about $484 billion of the $414 billion it raises in taxes, fines, fees, etc. Since the first number is larger than the second, California operates at a deficit. This leads to an $11,000+ debt per citizen. When you add that to the National debt per citizen of nearly $60,000, a California resident effectively bears a $71,000 debt on behalf of his or her State and Federal Government. If you distributed the debt among actual taxpayers in California, the number would nearly double.

Then, add the highest personal State income tax rate in the Nation along with the highest fuel tax and the eighth highest combined sales tax rate, and, as the saying goes, “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”

As a result, every few years politicians trot out the tired threat of having to reduce the number of firefighters, police officers, and teachers. Perhaps politicians take their cues from California’s 12th District Representative in Washington, D.C., Nancy Pelosi. In September of 2013, Minority Leader Pelosi told us: “The cupboard is bare. There’s (sic) no more cuts to make. It’s really important that people understand that.”

If that’s true of our Federal Government, it’s plausible that it might also be true of our State Governments. Thus, our elected officials are forced to jettison those who protect us and our property. Perhaps teachers are used as a political trading chip as well so that future generations will remain ignorant enough to embrace this senseless rhetoric.

Republicans occasionally use this threat to underscore the need for severe budgetary cuts. Democrats use the threat to rally the support of the associated unions. Neither is serious about actually cutting the forces of these groups; at least, they shouldn’t be unless they also have a plan to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these critical resources.

Interestingly, the Constitution of the United States provides excellent guidance with respect to how our States should address the issue of fiscal responsibility. Article I, Section 8 describes the purposes for which taxes may be collected and applied. The two major responsibilities are “to provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.”

What if States were to apply those same standards? (Note: This is not to imply that our Federal Legislative Branch actually complies with these limitations or even pays deference to the fact that they exist; it only is meant to suggest that the limitations have merit.)

Firefighters, police officers, and other first responders clearly “provide for the common defense” of our persons and our property. The recent wildfires in the San Diego area represent a perfect example of the incredible value these dedicated individuals bring to their communities.

Correspondingly, teachers “provide for the general welfare” of our children, our communities, and our future. Can our educational system be improved? Yes, but don’t place the blame on the majority of the teachers who have to operate within it. Reserve that criticism for the administrators and organizations that have lost sight of the system’s mission to do what’s in the best interest of the students from an educational perspective.

Instead of feigning an attack on firefighters, police officers, and teachers this time, perhaps California’s political leadership will try to identify true areas of waste as well as projects that fall short of their promise. One shining example would be the debacle surrounding its high-speed rail project.

The original project was to provide a high-speed rail system that would transport people between Los Angeles and San Francisco in 2 hours and 40 minutes. A referendum was passed based on these promises and the economic and environmental benefits they would provide.

Unfortunately, the estimated cost of the system has skyrocketed from $33 billion in 2008 to a current price of $68.5 billion. Its route has also been revised to include the Central Valley. This necessitates a “blended system” that incorporates the use of old track and commuter trains which, in turn, prevents the system from delivering the 220 mph service the referendum promised.

In review: the high-speed rail will cost more than twice the amount of money the voters approved, it won’t run directly between the cities the voters were told, and it will be anything but high-speed. Yet, “the powers that be” will try to pretend the changes are meaningless and generally reflect the will of the People as witnessed by their passing of the original referendum.

In the meantime, firefighters and police officers will have to beg to fund the assets and resources they need to “provide for the common defense,” and serious teachers will have to buy their own supplies and volunteer their time to “provide for the general welfare” of the students our State and local governments have abandoned.

Last week, California witnessed professionals in action: Firefighters who risked their own lives to protect the property and lives of others and police officers who blocked roads and patrolled evacuated neighborhoods to protect the property and lives of others. Yet, they are likely to be used (along with teachers) as political pawns as the November elections draw near by politicians who seem more inclined to protect their own property and lifestyles than those of their constituents.

Democrats have been the majority party in California for over forty consecutive years. Republicans enjoy similar longevity in other States. Barring criminal prosecutions, blatant ethics violations that aren’t swept under the rug, or unbiased redistricting, it is almost impossible to unseat a majority incumbent in these States.

Top Two initiatives will only make a difference if independent voters can be lured to participate in Primary elections. Otherwise, election cycles will only remind us of the movie Groundhog Day.

Perhaps we can take a page from the playbooks of our valiant first responders: Recognize that we are up against a political force of Nature that is running out of control; develop a strategy of containment; pray that ordinary citizens listen to reason and exercise common sense; and ultimately, “put out” the elected officials who have been burning through our tax dollars.

__________

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).

Read more

What happens when higher education lowers itself?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., May 12, 2014 – There are a few growing trends in our institutes of higher education, and the trends aren’t good. College campuses are beginning to treat the Constitution as if it were Chairman Mao’s Red Book (although the latter might fare better in today’s academic world), critical thinking has been replaced by conformance, and Civics has been abandoned in favor of political correctness. Is it any wonder our academic standing and global competitiveness have begun to suffer?

In January, two students from the University of Hawaii at Hilo were precluded from handing out copies of the Constitution on campus. They were representing the campus’ chapter of Young Americans for Liberty (“YAL”); a group that welcomes “limited government conservatives, classical liberals, and libertarians” into its midst.

According to YAL’s website, the group’s creed supports the following beliefs:

  • “that government is the negation of liberty; 
  • “that voluntary action is the only ethical behavior; 
  • “that respect for the individual’s property is fundamental to a peaceful society;
  • “that violent action is only warranted in defense of one’s property; 
  • “that the individual owns his/her body and is therefore responsible for his/her actions;
  • “that society is a responsibility of the people, not the government.”

It sounds quite subversive; almost as much as the documents from which those thoughts were apparently drawn (i.e., the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States).

The University of Hawaii’s campus policy does not allow members of clubs and organizations to approach fellow students to solicit them. If this rule were drawn up in such a manner as to prevent intimidation, harassment, etc., it might have a logical basis (i.e., to maintain order and safety). Unfortunately, it seems to be far more generic than that.

The two students were also informed they could not speak anywhere on campus other than in the “free speech zone” unless they sought permission at least seven business days in advance and received it. There once was a time in this country when a “free speech zone” had a different name: the United States of America.

Were this an isolated incident, it might be easier to dismiss. However, there was an earlier episode in which a student was precluded from distributing copies of the Constitution on another campus. That one occurred on September 17, 2013, at Modesto Junior College. If the date doesn’t ring a bell, it should. It’s Constitution Day; the day that commemorates the adoption of that famous document.

Of all the institutes in America that should represent the ideals that are defined within the First Amendment, one might expect our colleges and universities to rank at or near the top. So, let’s examine that concept.

Freedom of Religion

It’s offered on most campuses through separation rather than inclusion. Groups are often available for students to join but few are interdenominational. Rather than discussing differences and identifying commonalities, religious organizations on campus tend to attract only like-minded individuals and reinforce beliefs that are already held by their members. Does that sound educational to you?

Freedom of Speech

Last September, a Creative Writing professor at Michigan State University was suspended for having threatened students who differed with his socio-political views. He was captured on video saying, “I am a college professor. If I find out you are a closet racist, I am coming after you.”

Of course, this was after having defined Republicans as “a bunch of dead white people or dying white people” who raped the United States to get “everything out of it they possibly could.” Perhaps, there’s a chance the professor didn’t mean this. Maybe he was only practicing his creative writing skills through verbal articulation. Then again, you better not voice an opinion that disagrees with his.

Freedom of the Press

In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that “Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over…student expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school… A school must be able to take into account the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student speech on potentially sensitive topics.”  (Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).) While the case specifically addressed the issue of a high school newspaper, it has been interpreted to potentially apply to colleges as well.

In this regard, the University of Hawaii made the news again when it was sued last year in Oyama v. University of Hawaii for dismissing a student from a student-teaching program partially because of out-of-class remarks in which the student expressed unconventional views about a few sensitive subjects. With regard to the remarks, the University asserted its broad censorship authority under Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier to use the politically incorrect comments to remove the student from the program.

Freedom Peaceably to Assemble

This one is easy. Students still can assemble freely on campus if they do so peaceably. They merely have to secure someone’s permission well in advance of assembling. If clear standards do not exist with respect to the approval process, they may assume that their message just has to align with the beliefs of whoever is making the decision.

Freedom to Petition the Government for a Redress of Grievances

Universities are “home free” on this one. After all, they aren’t the Government. Their role has simply become one of shaping young minds to conform to a particular school of thought (no pun intended).

Witness what happened this past Constitution Day to a well-respected friend of mine, Pat Benjamin. Pat was scheduled to speak at Columbia University, the Ivy League from which she received her Master’s degree. She had written a book about a historically significant political campaign in which she had participated (The Perot Legacy). It should be noted, Pat is also a former educator, a civil rights activist who worked with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., a feminist, and a small business owner in the field of energy conservation. Clearly, she is someone who could significantly expand the thinking of college students who lack any comparable real-world experience.

Days before Pat was to deliver her pro bono speech, she was advised that it had been canceled. It seems Columbia had determined her speech to be “inconsistent” with the University’s position.

This is particularly interesting because Columbia, renowned for its School of Journalism, had never inquired about the content of Pat’s speech. Had it taken that first step of journalism (i.e., gathering facts), it would have realized that her intent was to encourage students to become civically engaged, to become informed about issues, and to participate actively with whichever Party they preferred. Apparently, this is “inconsistent” with the University’s goal for its students.

Many of our universities and colleges seem to have forgotten their basic mission, which is to educate their students by exposing them to a myriad of ideas rather than a minimum of them. While this may not coincide with our Nation’s preoccupation with assiduously adhering to the narrow bounds of political correctness, it might actually resurrect the lost art of critical thinking.

Instead, many of our institutes of higher education have evolved into a self-perpetuating system of higher costs and lower expectations. They fight to attract “higher quality” students rather than to focus on creating them. They build state-of-the-art classrooms, incredible athletic facilities, and spa-like student amenities to entice the “better” students to choose their program over the programs of others. As a result, student expectations have soared with regard to their physical surroundings almost on a trajectory that rivals the rising cost of a college education.

If college students were more deeply ingrained with the ability to apply critical thinking to their situation, they might recognize that the investment in assets that enhance their experience does not necessarily contribute in a meaningful way to the knowledge they are there to acquire. However, critical thinking represents one of the greater gaps that exists in our current educational approach.

In grades K through 12, we have defaulted to True/False and multiple choice questions because they are easier to administer and grade. By the time students are exposed to a college curriculum, they often have been cheated of the opportunity to evolve critical thinking skills (i.e., the ability to objectively analyze and evaluate an issue in order to form a judgment). Otherwise, the next time they’re scaling that rock-climbing wall in the University’s student recreational facility, they might realize why their tuition is rising disproportionately in comparison to the quality of the education they are receiving.

Interestingly enough, one course that has been proven to advance critical thinking is Civics. The instruction of Civics “kills two birds with the same stone” as the saying goes.

It challenges students to think in a non-linear sense because there are no perfectly correct answers to many of our socioeconomic and political problems. A discussion of these issues requires an objective analysis and evaluation in order to form a judgment, or in other words, critical thinking.

Civics also provides a fundamental understanding of the basis upon which our Nation was built, what rights we have, why we have them, and what our responsibilities are to preserve and protect them. If our students had a firm understanding of Civics, they would know when their First Amendment rights were being trampled and what to do about it.

Unfortunately, the instruction of Civics has given way to more politically correct courses in recent years. However, there is hope.

Another friend of mine, Richard Dreyfuss, appeared on Huckabee on May 10, 2014 (a show on Fox hosted by Mike Huckabee, the former Governor of Arkansas and 2008 Republican Presidential candidate). Richard has been working tirelessly for over a decade to revive, elevate, and enhance the teaching of Civics in grades K-12 of our public schools (find out more at http://thedreyfussinitiative.org).

Richard said, “…we don’t know enough about our Constitution or our history to know why we should be proud of it.” He eloquently described how “George Washington said the Constitution should be central; the Parties should be peripheral,” and then noted how we have unfortunately pivoted to a position in which, “…the Parties are central, and the Constitution is peripheral.”

Unless we return Civics to our schools’ curricula, unless we restore critical thinking to the skill sets of our future generations, and unless we foster a diversity of thought on our college campuses as opposed to a dearth of it, we will continue on the downward slide that emasculates our rights rather than defends them. We will be left wondering what happened to this once great Nation; why it struggles to compete; why the middle class is eroding; why Government dependency is increasing; and why the American Dream and the freedoms we once enjoyed seem to be vanishing memories. It doesn’t have to be this way, but please understand, the decision rests with you.

__________

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).

Read more

BENGHAZI: What difference does it make to the media or you?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., May 5, 2014 – Recently, the press provided us with yet another “Sterling” example of how much time it is willing to devote to a story that panders to our sordid nature. However, when new information surfaced with respect to the political positioning of the attack on our diplomatic compound in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, much of our media remained silent or at least detached from an investigatory perspective. This begs the question: Has our press abdicated its role as the Fourth Estate?

The story surrounding Donald Sterling, owner of the Los Angeles Clippers, commanded lead story status for a full week. It had every salacious element an uninformed American could want: sex, sports, and racism. Was it truly “breaking news”? No!

Now, consider the revelation that members of the Administration may have doctored the talking points surrounding the attacks in Benghazi that killed Ambassador Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods, and Glen Doherty. You can almost hear crickets in the background.

Of course, Fox News continued its crusade on the issue. In an effort to placate its core audience, it reports anything that might place the Administration in an unfavorable light. However, it might accidentally be doing its job with regard to Benghazi.

CNN also reported the story when it broke, and ABC dedicated 45 seconds to it in its nightly news program. That was 45 seconds more than NBC or CBS allotted to the news. Perhaps CBS should be excused since White House Deputy National Security Advisor, Ben Rhodes, whose e-mail lies at the root of the controversy, is also the brother of David Rhodes, President of CBS News.

Thomas Jefferson once said, “Whenever the people are well informed, they can be trusted with their own government; that whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights.” The press used to help us in that regard. Today, it’s a different story.

Consider the Benghazi-related question posed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a Senate hearing:

“With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they (sic) go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make?”

Let’s answer that last question for her and pose a few that remain open because the press has become anesthetized to providing the quality of inquiry that has heretofore protected our Liberty.

Madame Secretary:

  • It matters because there are, in fact, four dead Americans. They lie dead because requests for security were ignored by the State Department that you headed at the time. The excuse that you receive thousands of e-mails and cannot be expected to read each one doesn’t speak highly of your ability to prioritize. Responsible individuals rank life-threatening issues above the fund-raising speeches for which you found time.
  • While appropriate steps may have been taken to establish protocols to reduce the security exposure that existed at the time of the Benghazi attack, when will the American people have a clear understanding of why they existed at all?
  • Why was no authorized attempt made to respond to the initial attack on the consulate or the subsequent attack on the CIA annex? The excuse that, in retrospect, the military would not have arrived on the scene in time to change the outcome is specious reasoning at best unless the attackers were thoughtful enough to have provided us with advanced notice of how long their attack would last. It is seriously insulting to anyone of intelligence to suggest that, because we could not have made a difference, we are somehow exonerated from having tried.
  • Where were the President, the Secretary of Defense, and you during the attack? Were you in the Situation Room or conferring outside of it? Was a decision made to “stand down” and did General Ham, the head of AFRICOM, challenge that order? Was he relieved of command because of his actions, and if so, who made those decisions?

Please understand our curiosity. It has been nearly 20 months. Yet, we only have limited accounts of what transpired that evening in the White House.

We now know that the Situation Room was occupied in the President’s absence by Tommy Veitor (among others); a former National Security Council spokesperson, who when queried about whether he changed “attacks” to “demonstrations” in the subsequent talking points responded by saying, “Maybe. I don’t really remember. Dude, this was like two years ago. We’re still talking about the most mundane process… we’re talking about editing talking points. That’s what bureaucrats do all day long.” Try to understand why people might find that to be discomforting.

  • On September 12, 2012, you were the first member of the Administration to suggest that the attack represented a spontaneous response to an anti-Muslim video. Later, you buffered that statement with repeated references to “the fog of war” that obscures facts in the initial hours (and days) that follow such an attack. Yet, retired Brigadier General Robert Lovell, the Deputy Director of Intelligence and Knowledge Development Directorate for AFRICOM at the time, recently testified that his team knew that it was a terrorist attack and never seriously considered the video as a proximate cause for the outbreak. Why was the Administration apparently unaware of the intelligence assessment that was available from the region?
  • Given that the President recently responded to a question concerning the unrest in Ukraine by saying, “The notion that this is some spontaneous uprising in eastern Ukraine is belied by all the evidence of well-organized, trained, armed militias with the capacity to shoot down helicopters.  Generally, local protestors don’t possess the capacity of surface-to-air missiles or whatever weapons were used to shoot down helicopters, tragically,” how is it that the same logic wasn’t applied to the Benghazi attacks, which featured the use of RPGs and well-targeted mortars? It is difficult to believe that this type of weaponry could ever be rationally attributed to a “spontaneous” escalation of a protest.
  • With respect to the Rhodes e-mail of September 14, 2012: It was generated within the White House, distributed to senior White House personnel, and specifically addressed how to prepare Ambassador Susan Rice for her five major media appearances scheduled for September 16, 2012; the ones in which she emphasized the theory that the original attack was the result of a spontaneous response to an Internet video. The e-mail defines its goals as follows:
  • “To convey that the United States is doing everything that we can to protect our people and facilities abroad;
  • “To underscore that these protests are rooted in an Internet video, and not a broader failure of policy;
  • “To show that we will be resolute in bringing people who harm Americans to justice, and standing steadfast through these protests; (and)
  • “To reinforce the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.”

No one should quibble with the first or third points (although there is scant evidence that they have been actively pursued). However, if the Administration was still suffering from “the fog of war,” would it not have been better to avoid offering a false conclusion with respect to the cause of the attack? Why not state that we were still evaluating all the data to determine the exact cause?

Then again, it was a Presidential election year. So, God forbid there be any possible consideration of a “broader policy failure” on the part of the Administration lest it question “the President and Administration’s strength and steadiness in dealing with difficult challenges.” The press used to go after issues like this with a vengeance; digging deep to uncover the truth. Today, it just accepts this as the status quo of “political integrity,” which is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

During a White House press conference last week, Press Secretary Jay Carney had the audacity to suggest that the Rhodes e-mail wasn’t really about Benghazi or Susan Rice’s September 16th appearances. Should we ignore the subject line of the e-mail that said, “RE: PREP CALL with Susan: Saturday at 4:00 PM ET” or its specific reference to Benghazi?

Have we become as blindly indifferent to Party politics as the media? Keep in mind that the Rhodes e-mail only surfaced in response to a subpoena issued in a lawsuit brought against the State Department for the latter’s failure to comply with a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request. Previously, the State Department only provided a heavily redacted version of the document to the House Oversight and Government Reform subpoenaed.

It is worth noting that the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to protect the right of the public to access information otherwise controlled by the United States Government. Correspondingly, the purpose of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is “to exercise effective oversight over the Federal Government and… work proactively to investigate and expose waste, fraud, and abuse.” In either case, the State Department and the rest of the Administration are expected and required to cooperate in a faithful manner.

If it appears that a breach of faith has been exhibited, there is a protracted process through which legal recourse can be pursued (as happened here). However, a more vigorous prosecution of the facts by an engaged press might have surfaced the information sooner and provided clarity to its significance. Why wasn’t that done?

Lastly, President Obama won the popular vote in 2012 by 3.14 percent. In the final two months of the election cycle, how might that 3.14 percent margin have been affected if the press refused to embrace the claim that a video precipitated the attack in Benghazi? How strongly would the President’s mantra of “al-Qaeda is on the run” have resonated with voters if the media had aggressively challenged that assertion?

Of course, even if the popular vote had swung to Mitt Romney, that doesn’t mean we would have a different President today. After all, the Presidency is decided by electoral votes rather than by the will of the people, but that’s the topic for another day.

Interestingly, Nancy Pelosi made a poignant observation during her weekly press conference last Friday: “What I will say is, again, diversion, subterfuge. Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi. Why aren’t we talking about something else?”

Imagine what might have happened had she said the following in September or October of 2012, “What I will say is, again, diversion, subterfuge. Video, Video, Video. Why aren’t we talking about something else?”

There was a time when freedom of the press had meaning. The press bore the responsibility to investigate issues, particularly with respect to those that threatened other freedoms. It was an important enough power to be incorporated into the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom… of the press.”

Today, that protection is no longer required. Congress need not make any such law because the press has surrendered its right; comfortable in its new role of shaping the news rather than reporting it. The press no longer respects the responsibility that goes with its freedom; preferring instead to taint or ignore the facts in a manner that best conforms with the side it has chosen to represent. This is a travesty of epic proportions. How long will you tolerate it?

__________

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

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

Read more

What does Affirmative Action actually affirm?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., April 28, 2014 – BREAKING NEWS: Racism still exists in America. So do ignorance and intolerance. Since there is little chance of eliminating ignorance and intolerance, what can be done to reduce their impact on issues of race?

In a 6-2 decision (a veritable landslide in today’s world), the Supreme Court upheld the right of Michigan voters to amend their State’s Constitution in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action. That shouldn’t surprise anyone. However, since the case involved the elimination of affirmative action within the context of public contracts, public employment, and public education, it attracted significant national attention.

In that regard, Chris Wallace conducted an extremely interesting interview on Fox News Sunday (April 27th) with Jennifer Gratz and Shanta Driver. In a rare application of the network’s motto, he actually kept the discussion “fair and balanced.”

Ms. Gratz is the individual who successfully challenged the University of Michigan’s particular application of affirmative action to its undergraduate program in a 6-3 landmark decision in Gratz v. Bollinger, et al., 539 U.S. 244 (2003). Conversely, Ms. Driver is the civil rights attorney who unsuccessfully argued against Michigan’s ballot-enacted prohibition of considering race in college admissions in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action.

In Gratz v. Bollinger, the Court ruled that the University’s application of “points” was not a sufficiently narrow exercise of affirmative action to be upheld. As Ms. Gratz stated on Fox News Sunday, the University granted 20 points in its admission process (out of 100) based solely upon racial status while granting only 12 points for a perfect ACT/SAT score, 1-2 points for an outstanding admissions essay, etc.

Mr. Wallace did an excellent job of questioning both of his guests and allowing them to challenge each other’s position and respond to such challenges. For the most part, the two women argued their respective interpretations of the facts until Ms. Driver decided to cast decorum aside and condemn the High Court’s action as a “racist decision.”

Ms. Gratz countered by saying, “I think that it is unbelievable that someone would sit here today and say that prohibiting racial discrimination is a ‘racist decision.’”

Ms. Driver finished the segment by saying, “The old Jim Crow is the new Jim Crow, and it has a name.”

However, do not dismiss Ms. Driver’s argument for her inability to provide “a civil assessment” of the issue.  She did in fact make the most compelling statement of the well-managed debate when she stated the following:

“Look at K through 12 education and you look at the experiences of Black and Latino high school students in the State of Michigan. You compare any Detroit school to any major suburban White school in the State; the difference is night and day.

“And what those points (a reference to the point system that was rejected by the Supreme Court in Gratz v. Bollinger) represented was a recognition of the inequalities in this society that still structure opportunities. It wasn’t a gift to those students. It was a recognition that those students that work the hardest, that did the best coming out of those inferior schools deserve the same chance as their White counterparts that have so much privilege to go there.”

So, let’s examine why this was the most important statement of the entire exchange.

As is endemic within our society, we tend to misdefine our problems, misidentify their root cause, select from among only those alternatives that conform to our precognitive beliefs, and allow cognitive dissonance to protect us in the wake of our decisions. Ms. Driver’s comment underlines this phenomenon.

Let’s assume that Ms. Driver’s initial premise is correct: If we were to “look at K through 12 education and… look at the experiences of Black and Latino high school students in the State of Michigan… (and) compare any Detroit school to any major suburban White school in the State,” we would find “the difference” to be “night and day.”

Isn’t the problem, properly defined, one of addressing the educational disparity that may exist between the two school systems to which she alludes? Then, shouldn’t we explore: How do the systems differ; what resources would be required to create parity; and what steps can be taken to eliminate the gap in order to provide an equal opportunity to all students?

Correspondingly, at the collegiate level, what is the root cause of the inequality among high school applicants? Is it the color of their skin… or is it a failed “K through 12” system that doesn’t even comply with the “separate but equal” mandate of the maligned Plessey v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), that Ms. Driver mentioned during one of her answers.

Why isn’t there a coalition that’s focused on challenging why we continue to permit disproportionate differences in the quality of our public education rather than just a coalition that’s focused on masking the failure with “affirmative action”?

Ms. Driver argues that “…what those points represented was a recognition of the inequalities in this society that still structure opportunities.” Then, why not truly “recognize” the “inequalities” and eliminate them rather than continuing to allow them to exist? How does the former approach solve the problem?

The only thing for certain is that, while awarding points “in recognition” may assuage the sense of social justice of those who bemoan the inequality, it does almost nothing to assist those who have suffered from the lack of opportunity, and it completely fails those who will be resigned to face a similar fate in the future.

Ms. Driver asserts, “It (the points) wasn’t a gift to those students. It was a recognition that those students that work the hardest, that did the best coming out of those inferior schools deserve the same chance as their White counterparts that have so much privilege to go there.” This is the intellectual equivalent of treating cancer with a Band-Aid.

She is absolutely right when she says, “It (isn’t) a gift to those students.” A gift would represent something of value. A gift would be having provided those students with equal educational opportunities leading up to college rather than diminishing their ability to compete.

Let’s assume affirmative action (in the form of granting some kind of race preference) helps those who have been denied an equal education to experience college life. If a true educational gap exists, how will it be closed after the applicant’s acceptance? Will 20 points be awarded to the student on every test? After all, aren’t we trying to erase 13 years of having betrayed these individuals and denied them equal rights when it comes to their education? Where is the outrage in that regard?

Ms. Driver offers no solution for eliminating the “inferior schools” of which she speaks. She seems more comfortable in camouflaging the problem, which will only allow it to continue.

Of course, some students will rise to the occasion, capitalize on the opportunity of attending college, and substantively improve their lives. However, others will be damaged by their lack of preparation and will fail; perhaps cementing unfair stereotypes for yet another generation.

Among those minorities who would have succeeded without assistance, we risk diminishing their accomplishments by subtly assigning doubt as to whether their achievements were singularly attributable to their own efforts. This societal undercurrent is patently unfair.

Interestingly enough, affirmative action was never meant to create racial preferences. The term originated in March of 1961 when President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10925, which required government contractors to “consider and recommend additional affirmative steps which should be taken by executive departments and agencies to realize more fully the national policy of nondiscrimination…. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.”

Notice that the operative phrase is “treated… without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin.” Too often, we have found it more convenient to craft programs that specifically treat people with regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin, and you can add gender and sexual orientation to that list as well.

As I have often said, “The phrase ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal’ doesn’t have an asterisk.” If we could only grasp that concept and focus on providing equal opportunities to all rather than fashioning special exceptions that only reinforce a discriminatory environment, maybe we could take a large step toward forming “a more perfect Union.”

__________

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).

Read more

Is the growing income gap a problem or an opportunity?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., April 21, 2014 – We are a Nation that embraces diversity… at least when it comes to levels of income. There is a growing gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” in our Nation. Some choose to ignore it while others choose to exploit it. The problem is that nothing is being done to address it.

The income gap between middle-class families and the wealthy has been widening for nearly 50 years. In addition, the middle class has been shrinking in recent years into an ever-expanding welfare-dependent population.

Emmanuel Saez, an economics professor at UC Berkeley, published a research paper in 2013 that examined the problem based on 100 years of IRS data. He did something rather unique in his study: He applied the same definition to income over the entire period so his data would have a baseline for comparison.

It’s unfortunate that this small step is considered to be so unusual. However, as our political Parties have routinely changed definitions to critical economic terms to better serve their “messaging,” it is refreshing to view data that is factually accurate rather than politically relevant.

The report showed that, in 1928, the top 1% of income earners received 23.9% of all pretax income, while the bottom 90% received 50.7%. Then, the Depression and World War II struck and shook the very foundation of our economy.

As the end of WWII approached, the income percentages reflected greater parity. The top 1% dropped to 11.3% of all pre-tax income (less than half the 1928 percentage), while the bottom 90% received 67.5% (up approximately one-third). This suggests that the middle class had become more accessible and upward mobility was on the rise.

The ratio essentially remained stable for the next 30 years. It wasn’t until the mid-1970s that the gap began to grow. The rich became richer, the poor became poorer, and the middle class began to erode.

The Republican mantra suggests that the scale of the variance is immaterial and only reflects the natural operation of a free market which, in turn, rewards those who work harder. Democratic devotees argue that the trend is bad, disproportionately rewards the rich, and treats less fortunate individuals unfairly.

In reality, these arguments are seriously flawed. They are little more than obfuscations designed to pander to the stereotypical positions the Parties have conditioned their core constituencies to believe.

The fundamental Republican hypothesis is predicated upon the misconception that we are actually functioning in a free market environment. There are about a million pages of agency regulations that would suggest our markets are far from free. While a significant portion of these rules operate to protect our general welfare, many others are politically based and principally operate to generate income for the Government, provide competitive advantages to certain core constituencies, or assuage other influential groups that provide political support.

The Republican Party also argues that the gap doesn’t matter. For a group that tends to oppose economic subsidization in any form, it’s amazing that an ongoing expansion of the impoverished class doesn’t seem to be of concern. Cutting Government expenditures won’t make the gap go away.

It’s also difficult to reconcile the Party’s anti-subsidization stance with its reluctance to strip away the subsidies it favors in the form of tax credits and deductions for the special interest groups that fund its campaigns.

Similarly, any assertion that it’s the bastion of fiscal responsibility flies in the face of what transpired by the most recent Bush Administration, which surpassed the National Debt of the prior 42 Presidential Administrations combined.

Of course, the Democratic Party is no more consistent than its counterpart. Its altruistic virtue falls short when compared to reality.

While the Democratic Party may claim to abhor the gap between the middle class and the rich and may allege that it cares about the poor, its record is rather sparse on either count. Since the gap began to widen in the mid-1970s, the Democratic Party has controlled the Senate 50% more of the intervening years than has the Republican Party and 86% more with regard to the House. In addition, it has controlled both chambers of the Legislative Branch as well as the Presidency twice as many terms as the Republican Party during that period.

If the Democratic Party is so keen on closing the gap, why has it failed so miserably when it has had dominant control over our Government? Why do minorities and women continue to suffer from lower wages and higher unemployment? Why haven’t educational opportunities in minority communities improved or have incarceration rates dropped? How does it justify the “gap” between what it says and what it does?

If you need further evidence, according to Saez’s study, the Obama Administration’s “economic recovery” has accomplished the following:

“Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.4% from 2009 to 2012. Hence, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. From 2009 to 2010, top 1% grew fast and then stagnated from 2010 to 2011. Bottom 99% stagnated both from 2009 to 2010 and from 2010 to 2011. In 2012, the top 1% incomes increased sharply by 19.6% while the bottom 99% incomes grew only by 1.0%. In sum, top 1% incomes are close to full recovery while bottom 99% incomes have hardly started to recover.”

This was accomplished by an Administration that held the Presidency as well as majorities in both Legislative Branches in its first two years; a time during which it managed to exceed the profligate spending of the prior Bush Administration. It accomplished this while having access to $475 billion in TARP funds, $860 billion in the “shovel ready” Economic Stimulus funds, a $600 per capita tax rebate in 2008, the “Cash for Clunkers” Program, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bailouts and additional mortgage relief subsidies, as well as the Federal Reserve’s various “Quantitative Easings” and Maiden Lane Transactions that propped-up certain banks and other businesses that were deemed “Too Big to Fail” but not “too poorly run to preclude executive bonuses” (you see, the rich donate to Democratic campaigns as well).

Where was the “recovery” for poor and middle-class individuals?

As emotionally appealing as the “Robin Hood Strategy” may be, taking money from the rich only closes the income gap if you give it to the poor. When you spend it on ineffective programs, it does nothing to solve the problem. The reality is that the Democratic Party needs issues of “inequality” to remain intact. They are critical to its ability to manipulate and control the political dependencies and votes of minorities and women.

For the rest of us, the “gap” demands a reasonable solution. As Saez did in his research, let’s begin with a definitional understanding.

“Income inequality” is a misnomer. It implies that income equality is a laudable goal when that may not be the case (i.e., consider the importance of a meritocracy from a behavioral perspective). Conversely, “income disparity” is a legitimate issue with widespread social impact.

If the more pathological proponents of the Republican and Democratic Parties could recognize the difference between the two terms, we might be able to make progress toward addressing the issue. Rather than hold our breath until that happens, perhaps we should examine the issue and determine how we might resolve it without Government intervention.

If we segment our economy into two principal sectors, Public and Private, we can begin to make headway.

We can begin to control the Public Sector if we ever learn to embrace our responsibility to become informed citizens and to cast informed votes. If we elect individuals on the basis of merit rather than personality or the amount of money they can raise and spend to procure our votes, positive change can occur.

However, the Private Sector offers a more immediate opportunity. First, let’s separate it into its two principal components: Privately held businesses and publicly traded companies.

Even the Parties agree that small, privately held businesses are the lifeblood of our economy. Rather than restricting that economic engine, let’s celebrate it by following these three rules:

  1. Get out of the way!  Do not layer costs on these businesses by way of non-essential regulatory control.  When licensing and regulation is appropriate, administer it responsibly (i.e., processing should not be monetarily burdensome, nor should it be subject to undue delays). A business should be able to file the forms, pay the fees, and get a response in a timely manner.
  2. If the Government is going to attempt to stimulate job growth and economic expansion, do it here where access to capital is disproportionately restricted as compared to what is available to publicly traded companies that are well-established and politically favored.
  3. Do not tamper with the income of those who have taken all the risks and personally sacrificed significant aspects of their lives to build successful companies. Success in privately held businesses usually reflects meritocracy at its finest.

Now, let’s consider publicly traded companies and level the playing field. If legislative mistakes have permitted some industries to become “Too Big to Fail,” correct those mistakes so that every company competes under the same rules. Don’t reward failure in one case and punish it in another.

As an aside: Research which publicly traded companies (or their related unions) donate the most to political campaigns through their PACs or senior leadership. Then, compare that list to those entities that have been deemed “Too Big to Fail” or have benefited from stimulus money, subsidies, tax abatement, Quantitative Easing, or waivers from programs like the Affordable Care Act.  If you find a correlation, you should at least be suspicious.

This brings us to an element that has gotten out of control within many publicly traded companies: Executive compensation.

Boards have fallen prey to the same misplaced fear that paralyzes professional sports franchises (i.e., that salaries have to be escalated to retain “talent”). However, unlike owners of privately held companies, executives at publicly traded companies rarely, if ever, participated directly in the risk and sacrifice that led to the company’s success. So, consider the following scenario.

Let’s assume that a large publicly traded company needed to replace its CEO, who was being paid $55 million a year.  What would happen if the company found another talented individual for a still generous $4 million a year, who could perform equally well?

The company would have freed $51 million, which could be used to hire 1,000 new employees (at the national median income level of $51,000) to improve productivity and service or to accelerate development. Each new employee would be accretive to the tax base and immediately contribute to economic expansion as a consumer.

Conversely, what if the company instead chose to spend the $51 million on state-of-the-art equipment instead of people? All things being equal: Profits go up or prices go down, either of which serves to stimulate the economy.

What if the company decided not to reinvest the $51 million and instead distributed it as a dividend? Shareholders would be taxed on the proceeds and have three options with regard to the balance:

  • Spend it, which would stimulate the economy;
  • Save it, which would bring capital into the banking industry to loan to others, which in turn would stimulate the economy; or
  • Reinvest it in other companies, which would stimulate the economy.

If you want to help close the income gap, become a shareholder in a publicly traded company. Then, organize other shareholders to bring pressure to bear on the company’s Board (or Compensation Committee) to bring executive compensation into alignment.

CEOs of publicly traded companies currently earn about 360 times the income of the average American. Yet, few have the impact of 360 additional employees or other investment options. Democrats should like this strategy because it conforms to the “kumbayah” sense of society they pretend to support. Republicans should endorse it because it leads to an increased return on investment, so there’s an element of “greed” attached to it.

The other benefit is that you don’t have to wait for an election to assert your influence. As a shareholder, you have the power today, and you can affect change without spending taxpayer dollars or creating a Government program.

Why don’t you hear these types of recommendations from the Parties?

It could be because their leadership lacks the private-sector experience to even recognize that such solutions exist. Then again, it is probably because absolutely no political benefit can be derived from fixing the problem without injecting the Government into the issue.

Our Nation is facing serious challenges that require serious solutions. Income disparity is one of them.

The Democratic and Republican Parties have enormous resources they’ve chosen to use to craft perpetual campaigns. As Albert Einstein once said, “We can’t solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.” It’s time to start thinking about solutions that don’t directly involve our elected officials… at least until we develop the courage to cast the informed votes that will be necessary to replace those who are responsible for the problems we are trying to solve.

__________

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).

Read more

Is taxation just a gateway drug to our spending addiction?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., April 14, 2014 – It’s that time of the year again: The time when people scramble to file their taxes and pray that they don’t owe anything beyond what they’ve already paid. While our Government demonstrated fiscal responsibility for the first 125 years of its existence, the Sixteenth Amendment created a feeling of euphoria and power among our elected officials that quickly became addictive.

The Sixteenth Amendment states as follows:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

Prior to the Sixteenth Amendment, our Legislative Branch’s authority to raise funds to pay debt was governed by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, which prescribes:

“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

One might argue that the Sixteenth Amendment is little more than a clarification of Congress’ right to “lay and collect Taxes” under Article I, Section 8. However, that begs the question of why it was even needed.

In application, the Sixteenth Amendment marked a fundamental change in the way Government functioned. It provided a rich new capital resource that could be accessed without the same degree of care required by the imposition of “Duties, Imposts and Excises.”

What has evolved is not a system of “taxation without representation,” as gave rise to the original Tea Party, but rather one of “taxation with poor representation.” Perhaps this explains the resurrection of the term “TEA Party” which, before the movement was compromised to represent “all things ultra-conservative,” initially used the acronym “TEA” to suggest that we had been “Taxed Enough Already.”

For those who dislike the TEA Party, please understand that it probably never would have come into existence had Congress demonstrated even a modicum of fiscal responsibility. In that regard, it’s similar to the Occupy movement, which likely would not have come into existence if Wall Street had acted with a reasonable degree of ethical responsibility. Rather than jumping to the conclusion that either of these movements is inherently evil, perhaps we should consider what drove their existence and try to rectify the problems.

If we were to compare income tax to an illegal drug, cocaine would probably provide the best analogy. Cocaine is generally perceived to be a designer drug for the rich as compared to heroin, which is generally associated with the poor.  Similarly, many people currently believe that the imposition of an income tax should only be associated with the rich.

It wasn’t always this way. There was a time when the word “fair” implied “equal.” Almost every citizen dreaded April 15th but recognized that they bore a responsibility to participate in the funding of our Nation. Today, the word “fair” has evolved to define an entitlement among some and a burden among others. This begs the rhetorical question: “Is that fair?”

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “Taxes, after all, are dues that we pay for the privileges of membership in an organized society.” Yet, nearly half the citizens of the United States do not pay any federal income tax.

Accordingly, there should be little surprise that many of them are not concerned with the frightening degree to which our country has incurred debt under the last two Administrations. The Bush Administration raised our National Debt to a level that surpassed the cumulative National Debt of all prior Administrations. Not to be outdone, the Obama Administration saw that bet and raised it by establishing a level of debt that surpassed the cumulative National Debt of all prior Administrations including that of President Bush. The “drug” of taxation is astoundingly addictive and creates a delusional belief that its negative symptoms (such as excessive spending) can be overcome by a higher dosage (i.e., higher taxes).

While it would be easy to blame our plight on the Government from a generic perspective, it is probably more appropriate to recognize that Party politics have played a major role in how income tax has been abused much like individuals abuse drugs.

Consider the similarities between drug cartels and our political Parties. Cartels work hard to establish and protect their territories; the Parties work hard to establish and maintain their constituencies. Cartels use dealers to distribute their products; the Parties use members of the House and Senate to exact taxes. Cartels use intimidation and heavily armed enforcers to maintain a sense of fear and to collect debt; the Parties use the IRS. Finally, both the Parties and cartels are driven by an unquenchable appetite for power and money and neither allows moral absolutes to interfere with the satiation of that hunger.

However, there are also some marked differences. Cartels provide a product that is desired by those who wish to use it, whereas the Parties provide a “product” that more directly inures to their benefit (i.e., using funds to pay for programs that can be exploited to maintain and grow support). Additionally, cartels have to sell their product while the Parties can simply dictate the application of theirs.

In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was more of a gateway drug. One could argue that it was initially offered for medicinal purposes (i.e., to alleviate some of the political pain associated with the application of “Duties, Imposts and Excises”). However, once the Parties recognized that the “drug” could be administered without permission, their addiction to its use began to grow.

The first tax structure, when adjusted for inflation, reflected a 1% tax on incomes up to $474,305.05 with a maximum tax of 7% on incomes exceeding $11,857,626.26 (in 2014 dollars). Over the years, that dosage no longer satisfied the Parties’ cravings. As a result, today, the lower marginal rate resides at 10% and scales to 39.6% for single filers with taxable income over $400,000 ($425,000 for heads of households).

In all fairness, the Democratic Party is the more honest of the two when it comes to taxation. In recent history, it rarely has seen a tax it didn’t openly like.

The Democratic Party recognizes the political advantage that can be established by financing programs that foster a dependency upon ongoing subsidization as opposed to an approach that might actually solve a problem. If this were not true, minorities, who have been negatively impacted by the recent recession in such an extraordinarily disproportionate manner, might not surrender their votes so willingly to the Democratic Party that has clearly failed them.

Correspondingly, women might be more inclined to challenge the Administration’s failure to give birth to equal pay within the walls of the White House as opposed to worrying about access to free contraception, and the unemployed might be demanding access to jobs rather than extended benefits.

Perhaps benefits and subsidies have become the real drugs of the People and taxes are just a “necessary evil” to fund the habit.

Of course, the Republican Party isn’t any better; it’s just less honest. It hasn’t been able to stand up and say, “We’re the Republican Party, and we have a problem.” It still resides in a perpetual state of denial; pretending only to be a “social user” of taxes.

While the Democratic Party “mainlines” taxes into the veins of the system, the Republican Party does its “lines” in the privacy of deductions and credits tailored to its base. In effect, it “cuts” taxes to prolong their effect (i.e., to extend its impact on political fundraising, etc.).

Clearly, both Parties desperately need to enter a rehabilitation program. If you need more evidence, consider the fact that Lindsay Lohan supported then-Senator Barack Obama in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012.

So, what can be done to correct the situation?

What if our elected officials honored their Oaths and relied upon the Constitution? (See: Will we survive the real Cold War? – Feb. 24, 2014.) Specifically, what if they applied Article I, Section 8, and restricted their expenditures to programs that “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States”?

Think about that.

To use an analogy: The Federal Government is similar to an insurance company and taxes are akin to insurance premiums.

If a major country attacked Rhode Island and Rhode Island was left to defend itself, Rhode Island would lose. However, if that same attack were launched upon Rhode Island as one of the “united” States, Rhode Island (a.k.a. the United States) would win. In summary, the defense of each individual State is “insured” by the collective power of those States operating in unity.

Next, consider a natural disaster from which an individual State might not otherwise be able to recover (e.g., hurricanes Katrina and Sandy or the tornado or wildfire of your choice). Just as your home is insured against fire, each State is insured against circumstances that could result in a catastrophic loss. Our taxes create a pool of funds to offset such losses just as insurance premiums do in our daily lives.

As for programs that go beyond the realm of traditional insurance, the same standard would apply: Programs would have to be structured for “the general Welfare of the United States” rather than for a political constituency. If a program did not address the needs of citizens across the United States in a uniform manner (as opposed to favoring a few), it would not be eligible for federal tax funding.

Note: this would not preclude such a program from being established by one or more States under the Tenth Amendment or through the charitable will of the People under the Ninth Amendment.

This simple application of the law, as it is written, would eliminate an enormous amount of infrastructure and expense at the federal level, reestablish power at the State level, and reserve the residual decisions to the People where they belong. The Parties would no longer be able to use taxpayer dollars to fund political larks aimed at securing the votes of their constituents.

It might even drive some of the corruption out of Government, and it certainly would lower the return on investment for the Political Action Committees that so lavishly spend money on our elected representative to curry the favor of a “designer program” meant to benefit only a PAC’s donor base.

As Will Rogers once said, “The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.” Truer words were never spoken.

It’s time to deal with the issue before we are confronted with a debt structure that doesn’t offer a positive resolution. Simplify the tax code? Eliminate certain credits and deductions? Transition to a Fair Tax or Flat Tax system? What are your recommendations? Please join the discussion in the Comment Section below. Otherwise, the Government will continue to tax your patience.

__________

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).

Read more

Is it just semantics, or is “political truth” an oxymoron?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., April 7, 2014 – Politically speaking: Whatever happened to the truth? In a country of more than 315 million people, you would think we could find a few good men and women who were familiar with that concept and capable of delivering upon it. Yet, we seem unable to attract a sufficient number of individuals with the character to turn the tide against the more corrupt, “win at all costs” mentality that permeates our political Parties.

Instead, we are forced to choose among candidates who promise the world, then deliver little more than a dirt path that leads to nowhere. It’s all about manipulating the system to maintain and expand the political power of their Parties while paying back the surreptitious individuals and organizations that fund the debacle.

In recent weeks, we’ve once again had the Supreme Court not only condone the influence of money in politics but further enable its abuse. At the same time, we’ve witnessed embarrassingly inept Congressional Committees politicize significant issues that otherwise merit legitimate investigations.

Contrary to what certain Presidential hopefuls may think, it does matter whether the truth was told to the American people with regard to Benghazi or whether the facts were suppressed and distorted to provide political “cover.” More importantly, it matters if security decisions prior to the attack were made to conform to a political agenda (i.e., “Osama Bin Laden is dead, and al-Qaeda is on the run”).

This isn’t to suggest that any of the sinister alternatives were implemented but rather to highlight the importance of determining the answers with a degree of certitude that goes beyond some politician essentially saying “trust me.”

This past week, in reference to who altered the post-Benghazi talking points, we heard testimony that vacillated almost to the degree of saying “it depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is.” It has been more than a year and a half, and we still don’t have a description and timeline of what senior members of the Administration did and when they did it in response to the deadly attack on a United States consulate.

Why do we tolerate this? Don’t we want the truth?

Correspondingly, Congress further humiliated itself in March by taking another step backward in investigating the IRS’s alleged abuse of power with regard to conservative 501(c)4 organizations. Lois Lerner, the former head of the IRS division that oversees tax-exempt organizations, once again exercised her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. This apparently inspired the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to throw what amounted to political tantrums to defend their respective Parties’ biases.

Why do we tolerate this? Don’t we want the truth?

Congress also stubbed its toe on successfully investigating the NSA and its surveillance of private citizens without substantive probable cause. Intelligence Committees in both the House and Senate have been stymied by obfuscation, delay, and outright misrepresentations.

Who can forget the testimony of James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence? On March 12, 2013, the following exchange occurred between Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and the Honorable Mr. Clapper.

Sen. Wyden: “So what I wanted to see is if you could give me a yes or no answer to the question, does the NSA collect any type of data at all on millions or hundreds of millions of Americans?”

Dir. Clapper: “No, sir.”

Sen. Wyden: “It does not?”

Dir. Clapper: “Not wittingly. There are cases where they could inadvertently perhaps collect, but not wittingly.”

When information to the contrary came to light in June of 2013, Dir. Clapper offered the following explanation in an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell: “I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner, by saying no.”

Is that today’s new standard? Does “most truthful” equate to “least untruthful” in the world in which we live?

In an interview with the National Journal, Dir. Clapper further claimed: “What I said was the NSA does not voyeuristically pore through U.S. citizens’ e-mails. I stand by that.” 

Did you catch that nuance in his original answer? Maybe we’re not intelligent enough to understand “intelligence” … at least when were expected to accept misrepresentation to be a form of the truth.

Why do we tolerate this? Don’t we want the truth?

Next: Recall the shell game called “Fast and Furious” in which another American life was lost because of a political faux pas but little has been done to assign blame. The White House denied any knowledge of the operation, but later extended Executive Privilege to Attorney General Eric Holder to protect him from the subpoena power of Congress.

Then, the Department of Justice investigated itself and, not surprisingly, found itself to be guilty of no wrongdoing. Lower-level supervision was slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again. Meanwhile, U.S. Border Patrol officer Brian Terry remains dead.

Why do we tolerate this? Don’t we want the truth?

Similarly, the Department of Justice also investigated itself to determine whether it trampled upon the First Amendment when it secured the phone records of certain reporters and editors of the Associated Press and categorized Fox News correspondent, James Rosen, as a criminal “co-conspirator” so it could surveil his e-mails as well as seize his phone records.

On May 15, 2013, AG Holder testified to the House Judiciary Committee that, “In regard to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material — this is not something I’ve ever been involved in, heard of, or would think would be wise policy.” A week later, it was discovered that he had personally approved the search warrant with respect to James Rosen. Not surprisingly, the Department of Justice found itself guilty of no wrongdoing.

Why do we tolerate this? Don’t we want the truth?

Another favorite pastime is pretending that information doesn’t exist one day (when it appears to be unfavorable) and miraculously announcing its existence days later (when it appears to be favorable). In recent weeks, you could probably point to anywhere from 5 million to 7.1 million examples of how this works.

Creatively defining (or not defining) the basis for numbers is also part of the ruse. For example, under the current Administration, you are not “unemployed” even if you do not have a job and want one. You are only unemployed if you still qualify for unemployment benefits. You are also counted as a “newly insured individual” if you enrolled in the ACA even if you previously had insurance and were forced to surrender it because of the ACA.

These are not real-world definitions but rather political ones that foster a given Party’s agenda.

Similarly, in the prior Administration, a trillion dollars of debt-spending did not constitute an element of recorded debt as long as it was spent on a war. Speaking of which, “weapons of mass destruction” apparently need not be real; they only need to theoretically exist.

Clearly, the trend of offering misrepresentations as a substitute for the truth is not something new nor is it limited to a particular Party. It’s been a common practice for years and a veritable staple of both Parties. Perhaps the current Administration draws more attention because it brazenly promised to be the most transparent Administration in our Nation’s history. Then again, for all we know, it is.

Why do we tolerate this? Don’t we want the truth?

Let’s not even waste time discussing the blatant lying that takes place with regard to the political misappropriation of funds and sexual dalliances among our elected officials. We’ve simply come to expect it.

Perhaps Aaron Sorkin captured the essence of the corruption and frustration we see today in his brilliant 1992 screenplay about a certain “Code Red.” Although, it’s difficult to determine which metaphor best applies.

Does Tom Cruise’s portrayal of Lt. Daniel Kaffee represent our altruistic quest for the truth or our naiveté and sense of entitlement in his critical exchange with Jack Nicholson as Col. Nathan R. Jessep? Correspondingly, does Col. Jessep’s character represent the corruptive influence of power or our frustration with those who pretend to represent our interests.

Here’s the critical dialog. You decide.

Col. Jessep: “You want answers?”

Lt. Kaffee: “I think I’m entitled to them.”

Col. Jessep: “You want answers?”

Lt. Kaffee: “I want the truth!”

Col. Jessep: “You can’t handle the truth!

“Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who’s gonna do it? You? … I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago’s death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

“We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use ’em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I’d rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you’re entitled to!”

No matter how you interpret the metaphor, in the end, Aaron Sorkin hit upon the solution to our problems. All we need is “A Few Good Men” and women who can handle the truth and deliver it.

__________

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

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

Read more

Is it time to repeal the First Amendment?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., March 31, 2014 – Repeal the First Amendment? “Radical,” you say? Given our ever-increasing tendency to ignore it, perhaps the suggestion is not that far-fetched.

After all, it’s not as if our legislators haven’t made mistakes in the past. Prohibition provides the most obvious example. The Eighteenth Amendment was passed on January 16, 1919, and repealed by the Twenty-First Amendment on December 5, 1933. In comparison, the First Amendment has had a much longer “run.”

The ban on alcohol was abandoned because too many people were ignoring it. Sadly enough, the same argument can be made with respect to our abuse of the First Amendment.

Think about it.

With respect to religion, the First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Do we honor those protections, or do we encourage selfish interpretations of them?

Congress has never attempted to pass a law that establishes a national religion. There has never been anything equivalent to the Church of England our Founding Fathers had experienced and were trying to avoid.

However, we seem inclined to trample upon the “free exercise” of religion. In our quest to be politically correct, we frequently engage in activities that favor one belief over another.

A cross, Star of David, Ay-yıldız, etc. on public property is considered to be “offensive” if it is displayed upon public property while it remains unsanctionable if it resides on private property. What if we were to assume that public property without any open presentation of religious symbols was a tacit endorsement of atheism by the Government? Since atheism is effectively an unsubstantiated “belief,” isn’t it just a different form of religion, albeit one that does not believe in the existence of God, Allah, etc.?

Then, we have the incongruity of exercising our religious freedom. One political viewpoint likes to ignore such rights by imposing its belief that faith should not be a consideration within the context of social issues. The other side of the political spectrum clings tightly to the freedom to exercise its faith but doesn’t want laws passed that would permit those whose faith differs to have the choice to exercise theirs as freely.

Let’s pray that we can resolve this dichotomy… or not.

Next, the First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech.” The more fanatical members of our society seem to prefer to interpret this to mean that you have the right to express your opinion as long as it concurs with theirs.

Both political extremes attack each other with an embarrassing litany of derogatory names and terms. Racist, sexist, terrorist, homophobe, Islamaphobe, anti-Semite, anti-Christian, anti-American, anti-Hispanic, anti-immigrant, anti-poor, anti-middle class, etc. are among the more common personal assaults we hear levied against individuals to truncate free speech.

Wouldn’t we all be better served if civil and open debate were used to expose stupidity and prejudice rather than allowing an equal degree of stupidity and prejudice to be used to terminate the discussion?

However, our denigration of the concept of “freedom of speech” does not reside singularly among individuals. A degree of contributory negligence can be assigned to today’s media.

The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom… of the press.” Congress, for the most part, has complied.

However, an implicit responsibility is attached to this unique freedom; an expectation that such right be exercised with good judgment and generally without cumulative bias. With increasing regularity, our media has chosen to ignore such responsibility.

Profit has begun to prevail over principle within the traditional press almost to the degree it has interfered with our political system. Media outlets pander to those who pay the bills. They struggle to present the facts and to respect our ability to form our own opinions. Instead, they tell us what we must believe; spinning the particulars in a way that conforms to those of the political master they have chosen to serve.

Even the non-political news we receive has drifted heavily towards improving ratings rather than disseminating information. Stories are sensationalized and abhorrent behavior is glorified, yet we are surprised when tragic events are repeated. We fail to see the nexus between pathological behavior and the attention we give to those who demonstrate it.

Additionally, our press enthusiastically expands upon catastrophic incidents and provides every graphic detail possible. Then, it creates its own embellishments by trotting in “experts” whose tangential knowledge of the situation is so far removed as to render their opinions meaningless. However, this allows the media to exploit our fascination with scandal, other peoples’ misery, and drawing speculative conclusions without sufficient facts.

Perhaps we should peaceably assemble to discuss these issues and petition the Government to rectify them. After all, the First Amendment stipulates that “Congress shall make no law… abridging… the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Unfortunately, we often choose to ignore those freedoms as well.

The major Parties work hard to draw distinctions as to whom those freedoms should apply. No more interesting examples exist than those of the TEA Party and Occupy Wall Street movements.

Note that both of these organizations represent “movements” that call for fiscal responsibility. The TEA Party focuses on fiscal responsibility within the context of our Government, while Occupy Wall Street calls for the regulation of fraudulently exploitative behavior among certain facets of corporate America. Their goals have more in common than they have in differences. Yet, we are led to believe they are almost polar opposites.

Certain progressives, who “stand in solidarity with their Occupy brothers,” have routinely suggested that TEA Party members are uneducated racists and that the Party is akin to Nazis and every bit as hateful and violent. Correspondingly, certain conservatives have classified members of the Occupy movement as filthy, drug-crazed vagrants who commit random acts of rape and assault.

Of course, neither representation is remotely close to being true. However, they stir emotions and induce fear among the more extreme elements of the major Parties’ constituencies, and that translates into money and votes. Let’s ignore both groups’ rights to peaceably assemble in favor of exploiting the Parties’ “freedom of speech” to divide and conquer our Nation.

As for our ability “to petition the Government for a redress of grievance,” we surrendered that freedom long ago. Consider what we have allowed the Democratic and Republican Parties to do to our most basic form of redress: Elections.

The Parties control access to our political process at all levels (local, State, and Federal). They have erected enormous economic and petitioning barriers to entry that effectively preclude anything other than an infrequent challenge by an independent or third-party candidate. They have applied similar obstacles to the introduction of issues. As a result, ballot access is essentially denied to anyone or any issue that does not contribute to maintaining the duopoly that manipulates the rules.

For those who wish to point the blame at the industrial complex and certain high-net-worth individuals who greedily exert influence over the system, please recognize that the opportunity for such exploitation does not exist without a willing person or organization on the other end of the transaction. Also, keep in mind that those who benefit from the flow of money also draft the legislation that determines whether such interference is acceptable. This is the political equivalent of a perpetual motion machine.

It may seem ridiculous to suggest that we repeal the First Amendment. In fact, in a free society, it should. The concept should border upon being viewed as profane. Yet, the evidence suggests that many of us seemingly do not care.

When other rights are severely tested, when Government agencies are utilized to further political objectives, when States’ rights are casually circumvented, and when our pleas for transparency are met with redacted responses or simply just ignored, perhaps more Amendments than just the First have already been indirectly repealed. If you are disturbed by what is transpiring, here are a few suggestions: Speak up about it; write a letter to the editor; assemble with others of a similar mind; and contact your elected representatives to demand that the basic concepts of freedom be respected and restored… while you still have a prayer.

__________

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).

Read more