Author: testsite_tjohara

Is Over-Regulation Threatening to Kill Liberty?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., January 6, 2014 – Has Liberty died? Are we merely waiting for the political equivalent of a physician to “call the time” so that the certificate can be prepared? If so, excessive regulation may be the cause of death.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, Liberty is “the state or condition of people who are able to act and speak freely; the power to do or choose what you want to; a political right.” Conversely, regulation is defined as “an official rule or law that says how something should be done (or not done).” In effect, regulation is the antithesis of Liberty.

That being said, regulation isn’t inherently bad. In fact, regulation is fundamentally required “in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” As you may recall, those were the arcane justifications that were used to “ordain and establish” an old document to which we used to pay deference.

In fact, regulations that preserve Liberty and protect the public are an absolute necessity. However, we have a civic responsibility to question those that don’t. Unfortunately, we seem to have abandoned that civic responsibility just as we have the one to cast an informed vote.

The most egregious challenges associated with regulations are:

  • They divert capital from the private sector;
  • They tend to be grossly inefficient;
  • They are rarely reviewed to determine whether they are actually achieving their desired effect;
  • They almost never go away; and
  • They may be unduly influenced by those who fund political campaigns and are often used by the Parties to repay such debts.

Let’s explore each of these problems.

For the Federal Government to “govern,” it must create an infrastructure to promulgate regulations that become the basis for such governance. Then, it must create an infrastructure to monitor compliance with such regulations and another one to enforce compliance.

State and local governments need to follow this same practice, and each element of infrastructure needs to be funded. Since none of these governing bodies produces a product or service that contributes to the gross domestic product, each must secure funding. Taxes are predominantly used to fill the void. As a result, capital is diverted from the private sector.

Now, let’s apply that reality to an example.

  • Hold a dollar bill in your hand. Allow it to represent a tax dollar at the Federal level that is supposed to provide a benefit to some segment of our society. Then, do the following:
  • Fold a small section of that bill to represent the cost of the Department or Agency infrastructure that is required to promulgate the associated regulations;
  • Fold it again to represent the cost of the infrastructure that is required to monitor compliance;
  • Fold it again to represent the cost of the infrastructure that is required to enforce compliance.

Notice that you’ve paid a dollar in taxes but that considerably less than a dollar will be available to provide the benefit for which it was collected. That’s inefficient.

However, what if the program was to be funded by the Federal Government but executed at the State level (as many programs are)?

Begin folding the dollar again: Once for the infrastructure to promulgate the State-related regulations; once for the State infrastructure to monitor compliance; and once for the State infrastructure to enforce compliance.

How much of the dollar is available to provide the benefit that was promised?

You can continue the exercise if you’d like to see how much money is available if the program is required to be implemented at the local level. However, the experience can be traumatic.

Now, let’s consider the eternal life that’s granted to most regulations.

If regulations were given sunset provisions or at least subjected to a scheduled review to determine their efficacy, they would not be as oppressive as they have become. Unfortunately, this practice is not followed. As a result, regulations tend to expand exponentially over time and negatively impact your personal Liberty.

For example, it has been widely reported that 2014 was launched with approximately 40,000 new State and local regulations. Are you fully aware of those that may impact you?

Then, add the more than 50 titles and 200,000 pages of the U.S. Code to your responsibility to know the law. How are you feeling about that now?

In recent years, the Dodd-Frank Act has added approximately 14,000 pages of new regulations, while the Affordable Care Act has added nearly 12,000. Neither has been fully implemented, so expect those numbers to grow substantially over the next few years.

In 1913, the Federal Tax Code began with 400 pages. By the Orwellian date of 1984, it had grown to more than 26,000 pages in a reflection of Big Brother. However, those 71 years represented relatively modest growth. In the ensuing 29 years, the Federal Tax Code has expanded to roughly 74,000 pages. Consequently, the statistical probability of filing a completely accurate tax return is essentially nil.

Legislators are also prone to surrender to the critical mass of regulations that precedes them. When you have hundreds of thousands of pages of codified law just at the Federal level, it is easier to create new laws than to determine whether existing laws are sufficient or are in need of modification. As a result, the volume of regulations innately expands as does the potential for conflicting provisions.

Next, you should ask yourself: “Why do we need so much regulation?”

Political campaigns cost money … big money. The Presidential candidates of the two major Parties alone spent approximately $2 billion on their campaigns (not including each candidate’s “victory fund” or the nonprofit groups and other super PACs that also invested heavily on the candidate of their choice).

Even campaigns for local offices can require millions of dollars in today’s environment. As a result, the Parties and their candidates accrue significant political debts, which they often repay through political favors embedded in the structure of regulations.

Because regulations almost never go away, they are “the gift that keeps giving” to private sector interests that unduly influence every level of government, but which are particularly manipulative at the Federal level.

This regulatory erosion of Liberty is not Party-centric.

While Conservatives may claim to be for small Government and less regulation, the latest Bush Administration belied that assertion. It expanded Government at a rate not seen since the days of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose political agenda will never be associated with the word “conservative.”

While the United States was drawn into World War II during the Roosevelt years, the Bush Administration was able to craft two of its own. If that wasn’t enough, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform subsequently examined 700 projects that were executed between 2002 and 2008 and determined that the associated $1.1 trillion in funding was beleaguered by “significant waste, fraud, abuse or mismanagement.”

So much for “Conservative outrage.”

Correspondingly, Liberals pretend to favor regulation only as a means to protect the middle class. They used to argue in favor of big Government as a necessity to protect the poor. However, they’ve shifted their attention to the middle class since the poor cannot contribute sufficient money or votes to significantly affect elections.

In a deft reprise of the “Read my lips. No new taxes” faux pas of the first President Bush, then-Senator Obama stated during his 2008 campaign: “I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.” He could not have declared this more definitively unless he had ended it with the word “period.”

Since then, we have learned that middle-class individuals apparently do not smoke or use tanning beds, various forms of transportation, or electricity. Each of these has either directly or indirectly incurred a Federal tax increase since 2008.

We have also discovered that the penalties prescribed by the Affordable Care Act are only taxes for purposes of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they would violate the President’s promise.

Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve has been radically expanding the supply of U.S. currency while masking it with fictitiously low interest rates. While its “quantitative easings” have propped up the banking industry’s balance sheets (and, correspondingly, the stock market), they have also set the trap for a period of rampant inflation.

The combination of potential inflation with Government charges that have been semantically disguised as fines, fees, and penalties gives rise to a term I coined in an article I wrote in October of 2009: “The Ignorance Tax.” Essentially, one would have to be ignorant not to recognize that every American’s discretionary income is being deleteriously impacted by these Government or quasi-government actions that are veiled as something other than a tax.

The reality is that regulations are akin to chemotherapy: Those that “provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States” without killing our “unalienable Rights” are a necessary and appropriate protocol. Unfortunately, our elected officials seem to struggle with the concept of dosage. They default to “more is better.”

As a result, our regulatory environment and its associated costs tend to compound over time and serve as a political Petri dish in which to grow new strains of waste, inefficiency, and corruption.

Unlike Alzheimer’s disease, frivolous regulation has no age preference. Unlike sickle cell anemia, it doesn’t discriminate on the basis of race. Unlike uterine or prostate cancer, it doesn’t distinguish between the sexes. It simply attacks the Republic and our rights as citizens in an insidious manner.

The only questions that remain are: Are you willing to allow Liberty to die; and if not, what will you do to demand a cure?

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

TWITTER TREATS: New Year’s Resolutions from the World of Politics

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., December 30, 2013 – New Year’s resolutions are a tradition that parallels political promises. They sound good, but there is almost no chance they will be honored.

In the spirit of the season as well as to pay deference to the buzz around Twitter’s public offering, here is a list of “proposed” resolutions for our political Illuminati; all of which conform to 140 characters or less and may be tweeted as you please. They may even be slightly educational with respect to the structure of our Government, but please don’t let that get in the way of their humor.

From the President and his Cabinet:

President Obama: I resolve to no longer blame others and intentionally misrepresent the truth for political gain. Period!

Secretary of State Kerry: I resolve to reach media-worthy agreements with other nations at any cost to our own.

Secretary of the Treasury Lew: I resolve to take action against Wall Street banks that brought down our economy…unless they fund campaigns.

Secretary of Defense Hagel: I resolve to admit that there just may be a little waste in our $650 billion Defense budget.

Attorney General Holder: I resolve to uphold the law of the land…equally.

Secretary of the Interior Jewell: I resolve not to allow the President to shut down National Cemeteries and Parks just to make a point.

Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack: I resolve to expand the Food Stamp program to cover all Americans (as directed by the Agricultural lobby).

Secretary of Commerce Pritzker: I resolve to layer more regulations on businesses in the United States to enhance our competitiveness.

Secretary of Labor Perez: I resolve to further stack the NLRB so my Party can repay its political debt to the unions that support it.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Sebelius: I resolve to take a few courses in health care, actuarial theory, and programming.

Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Donovan: I resolve to use our Detroit “Model City” Program to help struggling municipalities.

Secretary of Transportation Foxx: I resolve to take a bus to work and fly commercial rather than travel by limo and private plane.

Secretary of Energy Moniz: I resolve to figure out why the EPA has been elevated to a Cabinet-level position.

Secretary of Education Duncan: I resulv to xpand Kommon Cor standerds to improve edukasun in Amerika’s 57 Stayts.

Secretary of Veterans Affairs Shinseki: I resolve to no longer allow Veterans to be used as a currency for political compromise.

Secretary of Homeland Security Johnson: I resolve to read every e-mail and listen to every phone call I can to keep us safe.

From Cabinet-level Officials:

Vice President Biden:  I resolve to come out of hiding and demonstrate my leadership abilities before I run for President.

White House Chief of Staff McDonough: I resolve to have the speed rating of the revolving door for this position checked by OSHA.

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency McCarthy: I pledge to stop circumventing Congress and pretending the EPA is God.

Director of the Office of Management and Budget Burwell: I resolve to have the word “Budget” dropped from my title since it’s irrelevant.

Trade Representative Froman: I resolve to sign more trade agreements that will accelerate the outsourcing of US jobs to offshore businesses.

Ambassador to the United Nations Power: I resolve to do more Sunday morning talk shows like my predecessor as long as I have talking points.

Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors Furman: I resolve to do absolutely nothing since I’ve been told the economy is doing so well.

Administrator of the Small Business Administration Hulit: I resolve to make this position irrelevant by killing off small business.

From the House of Representatives:

Speaker Boehner:  I resolve not to drink tea…particularly if it has a Kool-Aid flavor to it.

Majority Leader Cantor: I resolve to cooperate with the Administration and become the President’s new BFF.

Minority Leader Pelosi:  I resolve to read bills before I vote on them…and to check the cupboard one more time before declaring it to be bare.

Majority Whip McCarthy: I resolve to distinguish myself from Joe and Eugene McCarthy…at least within California’s 23rd District.

Minority Whip Hoyer: I resolve to serve as the poster child of campaign finance reform and to close any glaring PAC loopholes.

Rep. Ryan: I resolve not to confuse people with math and to never again use Veteran’s benefits as a trading chip.

Rep. Wasserman-Shultz: I resolve not to blindly ignore the misogyny and racism within my own Party rather than just that of the other.

From the Senate:

Harry Reid:  I resolve to actually allow a House bill to reach the Senate floor rather than complaining about the “do nothing” House.

Mitch McConnell:  I resolve to try to become as effective and charismatic a leader for the Senate Minority as Harry is for the Majority.

Chuck Schumer:  I resolve to offer my own opinion rather than my Party’s talking points…and to tweet selfies to my protégé, Anthony Weiner.

John McCain:  I resolve to continue to flip-flop as necessary as I strive to maintain relevance.

Diane Feinstein: I resolve to spend more time at the shooting range this year.

Ted Cruz: I resolve to talk more and to stand on principle…especially if failure is guaranteed.

From Other Political Leaders and Celebrities:

President Bush (43): I resolve to openly and aggressively blame everything on the Democratically controlled 110th Congress.

President Clinton: I resolve to fade into the political background and concentrate on my role as a faithful and supportive husband.

President Bush (41): I resolve to endorse my good friend Bill’s wife for President in 2016 because last names are all you need in politics.

President Carter: I resolve to only offer advice and opinions on what I know best…peanut farming.

President Putin (Russia): I resolve not to take advantage of amateurs in political negotiations.

President Kim Jong-un (North Korea):  I resolve to shoot hoops with Dennis Rodman…and shoot an occasional uncle or ex-girlfriend as well.

President Rouhani (Iran): I resolve to concentrate on the development of nuclear energy resources that will reduce Iran’s dependence on oil.

President al-Assad (Syria): I resolve to create an EPA-like agency to reduce the use of chemicals that may adversely impact people’s lives.

President Karzai (Afghanistan): I resolve to profusely thank the U.S. for saving my posterior and accept its withdrawal with grace.

Hillary Clinton: I resolve to honor my word that “I have no intention or any idea even of running again”…but what difference does it make?

Sarah Palin:  I resolve to be the stay-at-home mom that God wants me to be.

OFA’s Truth Team: We resolve to expose any political lie…unless it pegs the Truth-O-Meter like PolitiFacts’ #1 rated lie of 2013.

Karl Rove: I resolve not to make any predictions unless Dick Morris concurs… and I have enough PAC money to buy the results.

George Soros:  I resolve to outspend Wall Street’s capitalist pigs who’re ruining our chance to create the United States Socialist Republic.

The Koch Brothers: We resolve to create the best ultra-conservative form of government that money can buy.

Paula Deen: I resolve to not even call the kettle “black.”

Martin Bashir: I resolve to temper my arrogance, think before I speak, and look for another job…possibly as a diplomat.

Phil Robertson: I resolve to don my gay apparel if I ever grant another Christmas interview to Gentlemen’s Quarterly.

Alec Baldwin: I resolve to emulate Paula Deen, Phil Robertson, and Martin Bashir whenever possible because I’m Teflon, baby!

Celebrities (in general): We resolve to donate our millions to political and charitable causes before we try to extract money from others.

Political pundits with ghost-written books: We resolve not to pretend we’re authors even though we’re used to pretending we’re experts.

The People and their elected officials:  We resolve to recognize the Constitution and its Amendments as more than just suggestions.

On a more serious note: I resolve to continue to challenge people to have civil discussions about important issues…without losing their sense of humor. I hope you will resolve to enjoy the New Year and to find a higher level of peace, love, happiness, and good health in your lives and an even greater respect for your fellow man.

Please feel free to comment on the satirical, tongue-in-cheek tweets that have been offered above or to suggest new, tastefully humorous ones of your own in the Comment Section that follows. Have a wonderful New Year!

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Twelve Political Wishes to Celebrate the 12 Days of Christmas

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., December 23, 2013 – While the twelve days that precede the Feast of the Epiphany have almost been forgotten in favor of the more secular “After-Christmas Day Sales,” I thought I would offer twelve “wishes” that might result in a more positive political environment were they to be granted.

Our Founding Fathers were not necessarily more intelligent than we are, but they were certainly more motivated to establish a political system that placed the power within the People as opposed to within an elite ruling class. In turn, we have had several centuries to lose sight of that focus and allow political and economic interests to wear away at that goal. To return us to our course, I offer these 12 political wishes to be considered over the 12 days of Christmas.

WISH #1: That we finally realize that the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal” should not have an asterisk.

No exception should be made based on race, religious belief (or lack thereof), sex, sexual orientation, economic status, or any other criterion or characteristic. If we were to assiduously adhere to that tenet, many of our social problems would go away over time.

WISH #2: That we recognize that “Happiness” is the only Right defined within the Declaration of Independence that is qualified as we are not guaranteed “Happiness” but rather the “pursuit” thereof.

It is not the Government’s responsibility to provide for our “Happiness” but rather to assure that we each have an equal opportunity to pursue it as we choose. If we were to charge the Government with the responsibility of providing for our “Happiness,” we would inherently be required to allow the Government to define it as well. Nothing would present a greater threat to the erosion of Liberty than to allow the Government to wield such power.

WISH #3: That we recognize that “Governments are instituted among men” to secure our Rights and that they derive their “just power from the consent of the governed” rather than by independent proxy.

We have drifted back to a form of Government that more closely resembles the ruling elite our Founding Fathers were trying to avoid; one driven by power and unduly influenced by money. If “We the People” would exercise our civic responsibility to become more informed and then demonstrate the courage to cast an informed vote for what is in our best interests as opposed to the best interests of the Parties (i.e., not viewing our choice as being limited to the lesser of two evils), we might begin to see an erosion of the political divide that currently exists in Washington, D.C.

WISH #4: That we recognize that our role “to form a more perfect Union” is ongoing.

Those who believe that our Founding Fathers were infallibly omniscient in their draft of the Constitution ignore the fact that Article V was included to address societal shifts and circumstances that could not be foreseen in 1787. We have used that power to amend the Constitution on 27 occasions (although some might argue we’ve done it unintelligently at times). Yet, we seem afraid to use it to address issues that cry out for clarification. For example: The issue of privacy remains nebulous and at risk during this time of accelerated technological advancement.

WISH #5: That we refocus on establishing “Justice.”

The concept fashioned by Article III of the Constitution to create a balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches has given way to political gamesmanship. This practice taints the impartiality of our Courts in favor of gaining partisan advantages. It is an embarrassment and stain upon our Nation’s judicial system as are the disparities that exist in the prosecution of certain classes of individuals in our society.

The latter allows us to claim the ignominy of being #1 in the world with respect to incarceration on a per capita basis. It also represents perhaps the greatest example of racism in our country; one that has nothing to do with the ignorant statement of an individual but rather everything to do with the political danger of admitting to the problem and addressing it.

WISH #6: That we “insure domestic Tranquility” by providing equal opportunity to our citizens.

While we should embrace the concept that “all men are created equal,” we must equally embrace the reality that each individual has the right to determine how they choose to define and pursue “Happiness.” In doing so, we must create a society that provides equal access to educational and career opportunities while rewarding performance based on merit.

Instead, we have allowed urban schools to remain inferior while assuaging our sense of fairness by establishing an affirmative point system to close the gap. Unfortunately, that approach only reinforces differences and stimulates subliminal prejudices. Our misguided sense of social justice has not corrected the problem; rather it has masked it in a way that might make us feel better about ourselves but, in truth, only serves to suppress the progress of the masses in favor of highlighting the successes of a few.

WISH #7: That we provide for the common Defense of our Nation in proportion to the risk.

Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, our legislative mandate is to “provide for the common Defence (sic) … of the United States.” Yet, we have become the de facto “police” of the world. We spend more on Defense than the next 10 countries combined and, unless you support Minority Leader Pelosi’s general statement that “the cupboard is bare” and no further budgetary cuts can be made, there may be room for improvement.

What if we were to first develop a cogent foreign policy that shifted sovereign responsibilities back to sovereign nations? What if we then structured a Defense strategy that maintained a serious level of technological superiority without needlessly clinging to old military policies (e.g., the maintenance of widely distributed bases that may have made sense during the Cold War and reflected the logistic realities of their time but that lack continued relevance in today’s world)? It would appear that we could more than adequately provide for our common defense while reallocating the budget domestically or reducing the economic threat posed by our debt.

WISH #8: That we recognize that our obligation to “promote the general Welfare” (under the Preamble) and “provide” for it (under Article I, Section 8) is tied to a definition of welfare that equally impacts all citizens of the United States as opposed to those who can be exploited as a political constituency.

The Federal Government is meant to be an umbrella that shelters all of the States and each of its citizens from those ills that the States and individuals cannot otherwise not survive. It is not meant to provide special programs that serve little purpose other than to create a sense of obligation for which votes and political donations are the expected payback.

WISH #9: That our major political Parties stop selectively arguing the protections of the First Amendment.

Our Parties are prone to confuse laws, which must be applied uniformly among people, with religious beliefs that clearly may differ among individuals. They often argue “free speech” only when it conforms to their platforms and try to suppress it when it does not. The Parties also pretend to want a “free press” while spending hundreds of millions of dollars on media buys to influence just how freely the press expresses its opinions.

Additionally, the Parties take turns rejecting the right of the People “peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Just revisit how the Democratic Party describes any TEA Party assembly and how the Republican Party reflects upon the Occupy Movement.

WISH #10: That a balance of power is retained between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial Branches of our Government.

Today, we have a Legislative Branch that has, in some cases, abdicated its role and, in other cases, expanded its spending far beyond the limitations prescribed by Article I, Section 8; we have an Executive Branch that has become enthralled with legislating through Executive Order and by directing Departments and Agencies to circumvent legislative intent; and we have a Judicial Branch that has been populated on a basis of political alignment rather than demonstrated legal merit, which has led to the practice of legislating from the bench. Is it any wonder that our Government appears to be so dysfunctional?

WISH #11: That our Federal Government would recognize that the Ninth and Tenth Amendments still exist.

We have allowed our Federal Government to become imbued with the belief that it singularly has the authority to determine the scope of our Rights and how they should be regulated. It has forgotten that its purpose is to secure our Rights and that it has no authority to determine them other than in a manner that uniformly preserves them among the States.

Under the Tenth Amendment, a greater breadth of power was reserved to the States than was reserved to the Federal Government. Yet now, the States have become far too dependent upon the Federal Government with respect to funding and have surrendered much of their responsibility as a result.

Correspondingly, the Ninth Amendment was drafted to preserve and protect the ordained Rights of the People. Unfortunately, it has been increasingly ignored over time, and the elite ruling class that our Founding Fathers so desperately sought to preclude has slowly been re-established.

WISH #12: That we will have the strength to recognize and reestablish the basis of our Republic so that we can “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

… And on a non-political basis: I wish that you each may be blessed with peace, love, happiness, and good health during this holy season and throughout the New Year.

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

We Can’t Duck The Dynasty of Hypocrisy

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., December 20, 2013 – The purported controversy surrounding the interview of Duck Dynasty’s patriarch, Phil Robertson, underlines the blurred distinction between Conservatives and Liberals that we have begun to witness. Pathological proponents of both constituencies have gravitated toward attacking one another with the same arguments anytime an otherwise meaningless public figure makes a comment that doesn’t conform to their respective platform positions. Perhaps this paradox will force both sides to try something different: respecting their differences; listening to the other side; and forming a fully-informed opinion based upon fact rather than Party doctrine.

We could pick the faux pas of our choice to serve as examples, but let’s stick with the most recent two to highlight the hypocrisy (i.e., Martin Bashir and Phil Robertson).

Both sides are quick to claim “free speech” under the First Amendment to justify the right of an individual to make whatever crass comment they so choose. Let’s examine that Amendment to examine whether it’s applicable:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Congress clearly hasn’t made any law that is applicable to the commentaries Messrs. Bashir and Robertson chose to exercise. Correspondingly, not all speech is protected. There are exceptions: defamation, speech that incites a riot, “fighting words,” etc.

Mr. Bashir chose to make a vulgar attack on a high-profile female during the course of his news program. Liberals, who are otherwise quick to charge Conservatives with perpetually waging a War on Women, found it convenient to ignore the misogynistic overtone of Mr. Bashir’s comment and quickly tried to provide “context” for his statement.

MSNBC, which Conservatives like to vilify as a shill for the Left, was sufficiently embarrassed by Mr. Bashir’s behavior to be moved to accept his resignation. It should be noted that MSNBC also canceled another show whose host used a homosexual slur outside of the context of his short-lived show.

Mr. Robertson chose to degrade an entire class of people while expressing his interpretation of religious doctrine during the course of an interview. Conservatives, who are otherwise quick to charge Liberals for holding a double standard, applied a double standard. They, too, tried to provide “context” for his statement.

Similar to MSNBC’s reaction to Mr. Bashir’s remark, A&E moved more quickly to distance itself from Mr. Robertson’s statements and took relatively immediate job action against him in the form of an indefinite suspension.

Some Liberal pundits were appalled that MSNBC “caved” to public outrage when it accepted Mr. Bashir’s resignation. After all, he had the right to express his opinion. Many of those same pundits were quick to condemn Mr. Robertson for the expression of his opinion.

Similarly, some Conservative leaders just can’t understand how A&E can suspend a man for expressing his religious beliefs. Many of these same people had criticized MSNBC for failing to have immediately fired Mr. Bashir.

Are there differences between the contexts of Mr. Bashir’s and Mr. Robertson’s comments? Yes.

Mr. Bashir made his statements while on the air for MSNBC, which creates a closer nexus between Mr. Bashir and his employer than exists in the case of Mr. Robertson’s interview for GQ Magazine. GQ has no direct affiliation with A&E, and Mr. Robertson’s comments were not made within the context of his show.

Correspondingly, Mr. Bashir made a personal attack on a public figure, while Mr. Robertson succeeded in offending an entire class of people who have not necessarily consented to being in the public limelight.

Which of these differences is more significant? It depends on your bias.

Are there other differences? Of course!

Mr. Bashir dresses in expensive suits and conducts himself with a condescending air that reflects an intellectual disdain for anyone who disagrees with his position. Conversely, Mr. Robertson dresses in camouflage and pretends to leave final judgment to God while exercising his personal judgment on Earth.

Yet, the two men and situations are actually quite similar.

Mr. Bashir and Mr. Robertson were expressing opinions based on their personal beliefs. Both had the misfortune of doing so in a way that was hurtful to others. Both have apologized (at least to some degree) to those they offended. Both have suffered professional consequences as a result of their conduct.

While MSNBC and A&E have taken slightly different paths with regard to the related job actions (one passive and one proactive), they both chose to sanction their “stars.” Devout Conservatives thought that MSNBC should have acted immediately, but that A&E should not have acted at all (other than to state that Mr. Robertson’s opinions did not reflect those of the network). Not surprisingly, fervent Liberals thought that MSNBC should have limited its punishment to Mr. Bashir’s on-air apology, but that A&E has been correct in taking immediate disciplinary action against Mr. Robertson.

So, what’s the reality, particularly in the wake of Reality TV?

Both men have the right to share their opinions in whatever way they choose. Both men have the responsibility to accept the consequences of their actions.

Both networks have the right to weigh the consequences of their response to such controversies. Both likely considered the impact on ratings, advertising revenue, audience alienation, etc. before reaching their decisions.

Mr. Bashir’s ratings were not stellar. Do not expect to see him back on the air any time soon in his former capacity.

Mr. Robertson’s ratings were stellar, and he has the leverage of having his family comprise the entire cast of his show. Expect to see him back on the air at some point.

In today’s corporate-political complex, don’t be surprised if NBC picks up Duck Dynasty as a primetime show, while A&E creates a new reality show based on the life of an unemployed news/infotainment personality.

What if we accepted the fact that human frailties exist; that the opinions of media personalities bear no profound credibility nor special exemption from good taste; and that Sampson’s weapon of choice can slay careers as well as Philistines? What if we didn’t react so violently to the opinions of others that may differ from our own? What if we actually used these instances as learning experiences and as the basis for a civil assessment of the issues? Rather than further dividing our Country, perhaps we would expose ignorance and hate in a way that would bring us together.

Hypocrisy is alive and well in America among our political extremes. Both factions have built dynasties we just can’t duck. Let us hope that in every instance, there will be an opportunity to turn off the biases … or at least change the channel.

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Will the Nuclear Option’s fallout yield a “Survivor”?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 25, 2013 – While Secretary of State Kerry reached a temporary Nuclear Peace Treaty with Iran, we may have been better served had he tried to negotiate a settlement between the warring factions within our own Senate. This past week, Senate Majority Leader Reid and his Party exercised what has become colloquially known as the “nuclear option;” a maneuver that changed the rules of the United States Senate with respect to certain political and judicial appointments that were otherwise vulnerable to the parliamentary procedure of “filibuster.”

Was this move a preemptive or defensive political strike? As Hillary Clinton might be expected to say, “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

Biased advocates will deliver the benighted speaking points of their respective Parties while giving little heed to history or reality. Ardent Republicans will cry “foul” and describe the move as a “naked power grab.”   Simultaneously, zealous Democrats will assert that they had no option given the “obstructionist behavior” of Republicans.

While these same individuals might mock the tribal nature of many third-world countries, they choose to ignore the fact that their behavior has degenerated into a tribal display as well. Any pledge of achieving bipartisan accord has been dismissed as nothing more than a vacuous campaign promise.

Given Congress’ single-digit approval rating, one might reasonably think that the Senators and Representatives who were up for re-election in 2012 might not have fared well. One would be wrong.

Unlike CBS’ long-running show, Survivor, almost no one ever gets “voted off the island.” In fact, 91 percent of the Senators and 90 percent of the Representatives, who were running for re-election this past year, were returned to office.

Given that rate of success, particularly under the circumstances, it is easy to understand why our elected officials believe they can behave so badly without any fear of repercussion.

However, what would happen if the electorate began to take its responsibilities seriously? What would happen if it became more informed? What would happen if it didn’t mindlessly surrender its votes to Party dicta? Perhaps, we’d begin to hear the equivalent of Survivor’s famous line: “Bring me your torch. The tribe has spoken.”

So, let’s begin by examining the nuclear option within a historical context; a context that many citizens, and apparently nearly all elected officials seem to lack.

Once upon a time, a group of old men were tasked with establishing a new Government. They recognized that pure democracies inevitably collapse because they fail to give a voice to the minority. As a result, the Framers crafted a document that called for a democratic Republic which, for the first time in history, held the People to be sovereign and provided them with a representative form of Government.

The Constitution provides as follows:

  • “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives” (Art. I, Sec. 1);
  • “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America” (Art. II, Sec. 1); and
  • “The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” (Art. III, Sec. 1).

This was done to establish a balance of power between the three branches of Government.

While some may scoff at the abilities of the men who drafted the Constitution, let the record show that the document has fundamentally preserved the Republic for over 226 years. Had the task fallen upon our present leadership, Las Vegas might book the over/under at 226 days…or maybe even hours.

The Framers also created a clear distinction between the House and Senate in Article I, Sections 2 and 3, respectively. Under the original provisions, citizens directly elected Members to the House (a practice that remains), while Senators were appointed by their States’ legislatures (a practice that has been discontinued).

The latter approach secured the ability of the States to check any expansion of the Federal Government that might otherwise be in contravention of the Tenth Amendment. However, over the years, corruption intervened. Senatorial appointments were occasionally offered as a repayment of political debt and were also subject to bribes. In some cases, seats even remained unfilled for varying lengths of time because a State’s legislature couldn’t agree on an appointment.

This led to the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913, which ignored the reason for the distinction drawn by the Framers between the House and the Senate in favor of treating the disorder with the placebo of an election. Unfortunately, this solution did nothing to eliminate the offending elements of favoritism and monetary influence.

Why is this important with respect to the nuclear option?

The Seventeenth Amendment dramatically blurred one of the most important contrasts between the bicameral chambers. Another major difference happens to be the availability of a parliamentary procedure known as a “filibuster” in the Senate, which the nuclear option radically diluted.

Filibusters have quite a colorful history in the Senate. They originally allowed a single Senator to delay or even block legislation and appointments from occurring. Then, Rule 22 was adopted in 1917 to allow the Senate to end a filibuster upon a two-thirds majority vote through a procedure known as “cloture.”

Two things are of note: The Rules have been changed before; and cloture used to require a two-thirds vote (i.e., 67 votes), which was an extremely high threshold meant to preserve the rights of the minority to be heard.

The last significant use of cloture requiring a two-thirds majority came in 1964 when the Senate ended the 60-day filibuster of Southern Democrats who were trying to block civil rights legislation that included anti-lynching provisions. Then, in 1975 under the Ford Administration, Rule 22 was amended to reduce the required vote to its present three-fifths (i.e., 60 votes). After the nuclear option, a simple majority will do.

Have filibusters been abused? Yes. Will it happen in the future with respect to the political and judicial appointments that the nuclear option impacts? No. The minority’s voice has effectively been silenced by majority rule.

Interestingly enough, to change the Rule, the Democrats had to use procedural ploys to circumvent the normal course of Senate business. Otherwise, the Rule change itself could not have been passed by a simple majority.

However, don’t blame the Democrats. Both Parties routinely debase the Republic by gerrymandering Districts to retain control of Congressional seats, so we should expect this kind of behavior.

In addition, the Democrats didn’t originate the concept of a nuclear option. Back in the 1950s when they were using filibusters to stall President Eisenhower’s judicial appointments, a fellow by the name of Richard Nixon wrote a brief on what might be done to avoid the tactic.

Then, the Republicans resurrected Nixon’s “tricky” concept in 2005, when the Democrats were again using filibusters to disrupt President Bush’s appointments. It should be noted that the Democrats were just retaliating for the Republicans’ use of filibusters to stifle President Clinton’s appointments. “Children will be children,” as the saying goes.

Furthermore, Senator Reid and his normal supporting cast correctly assert that the Republicans have used (or threatened) filibuster at an unprecedented rate. Since the Democrats took control of the Senate in 2007, Republicans have been responsible for about 31 percent of the cloture motions filed in the history of that chamber.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell should be ashamed of that record.

Of course, Senate Majority Leader Reid should be ashamed as well. Just this summer, he reached an agreement with McConnell and gave his word that he would not exercise the nuclear option. Apparently, he didn’t end his promise by emphatically saying “period,” so maybe his word shouldn’t count.

However, what about his position in 2005? Should that be expunged as well … along with the positions of Democratic leaders such as Senators Schumer, Feinstein, and Baucus, and then-Senators Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Barack Obama? To wit:

“The filibuster is not a scheme, and it certainly isn’t new. The filibuster is far from a procedural gimmick.”

– Sen. Reid

“We are on the precipice of…a Constitutional crisis. The checks and balances, which have been at the core of this Republic, are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option…It is amazing, almost a temper tantrum…”

– Sen. Schumer

“The nuclear option…will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of Senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next, will be executive appointments. And then, legislation…If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option, the Senate becomes, ipso facto, the House of Representatives…”

– Sen. Feinstein

“This is the one-way democracy ends; not with a bomb, but with a gavel.”

– Sen. Baucus

“The Senate is being asked to…ignore the precedent, to ignore the way our system has worked; the delicate balance…that has kept this Constitutional system going – for immediate gratification of the present President.”

– then-Senator Hillary Clinton

“This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party…designed to change the reading of the Constitution…It is nothing more or nothing less.”

– then-Senator Joe Biden

“… I rise today to urge my colleagues to think about the implications the nuclear option would have on this chamber and this country. I urge you to think not just about winning every debate, but about protecting free and democratic debate.”

– then-Senator Barack Obama

These prominent Democrats were vehemently opposed to the use of the nuclear option in 2005. Each of them recognized the absolute necessity of preserving the minority’s right to be heard even if it required the somewhat arcane use of filibusters.

So, what’s changed?

Then-Senator Obama is now President, and the Democrats are no longer a minority in the Senate.

This is not to dismiss the culpability of the Republicans or their ability to match the blatant hypocrisy of the Democrats. It is simply meant to emphasize how little words mean among politicians. Perhaps Secretary Kerry should keep that in mind as he negotiates agreements in which the term “nuclear” has far more relevance.

Unfortunately, as with any nuclear attack, fallout can become a severe issue. No one will ever accuse our current cadre of elected officials of having a long-range vision. At best, they look to the end of the next election cycle. Too often, even that is a stretch for them.

While the Democrats may celebrate by quickly stacking the D.C. Circuit Court to garner favorable decisions (the real plum upon which they were focused), the roles will be reversed at some point. If they are hoping that Republicans will act with more integrity than they have, they may become as bitterly disappointed as the rest of us.

Let us end with one of Aesop’s fables:

One winter, a Farmer found a Snake stiff and frozen with cold. He had compassion on it, and taking it up, placed it in his coat. The Snake was quickly revived by the warmth, and resuming its natural instincts, bit its benefactor, inflicting on him a mortal wound. “Oh,” cried the Farmer with his last breath, “I am rightly served for pitying a scoundrel.”

To paraphrase Aesop: We are rightly served for electing scoundrels.

We need to become more informed before 2014, take our responsibilities seriously, and stop reinforcing the definition of insanity. We need to invoke our own nuclear option. Maybe then, the Republic will “survive” and the scoundrels will get the message: “Bring me your torch. The tribe has spoken.”

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Gambling on the Affordable Care Act to cure political ignorance

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 19, 2013 –  Political ignorance is a communicable disease that has reached epidemic proportions. It is an airborne virus that puts people at risk every time an infected politician or Party sycophant opens his or her mouth. Unfortunately, the Affordable Care Act not only doesn’t cover it, it appears to be responsible for the most recent outbreak.

Common symptoms include elevated voices and blood pressure, the recitation of petty bullet points any time a television camera is present or someone attempts to discuss an issue intelligently, an endless stream of e-mail solicitations for donations to spread the disorder, and the development of chronic blindness to reason.

Let’s examine the Affordable Care Act and insurance in general to see if this plague can be contained.

First of all, if “truth in advertising” laws applied to the naming conventions of public acts, the ACA would have been called the Attempt to Expand Health Care Insurance to More People at Any Cost Act. Had it been so named, perhaps there wouldn’t be as much confusion over its purpose.

As was discussed in last week’s article, the ACA has little to do with the affordability or quality of health care. It doesn’t even concentrate on providing access to actual health care. It has far more to do with expanding access to health care insurance with a lower cost to some and a higher cost to others. (See Is Obamacare the landmark legislation and political lesson of our time? – November 11, 2013.)

Since the ACA’s fundamental focus is to increase access to health care insurance, it’s important to understand how insurance functions.

Insurance is a socially approved form of gambling. It generally allows you to place a bet in which the payoff could be huge, but the odds are not in your favor.

For example, most of us have residential fire insurance even though few of us will ever suffer such a loss. In fact, in any given year, you have less than 0.5 percent chance of experiencing such a loss. Still, the potential scale of any such loss is significant enough to merit coverage and residential lenders will even demand it to secure their investment.

Next, let’s consider automobile insurance since most of us have experience with that as well. If you are a “good” driver based on your record, you will enjoy a lower rate than a reckless driver, a driver with DUIs, or someone whose record is similar to yours but who happens to be a member of a higher-risk demographic (e.g., a teenage boy).

The reason automobile insurance is relevant to our discussion is that the ACA asks us to ignore a fundamental truth that we just acknowledged; specifically, that experience allows us to accurately assess risk on a statistical basis (i.e., teenage boys are a higher insurable risk than teenage girls, etc. when it comes to driving). In fact, the insurance industry is predicated upon the use of actuarial tables that allow insurance companies to be the “house” in our gambling analogy.

Just as casinos would not exist if the odds of winning and losing were equal, the same is true of insurance companies. They must collect more money than the actuarial tables suggest they are statistically likely to have to pay during any given period, or they will go out of business.

The Government used to understand this.

Consider Social Security, which is being used as an example of how the ACA may become widely embraced over time. Social Security has risen to the status of becoming an “entitlement.” However, it is important to understand how the program was originally constructed.

Citizens would pay into the Social Security system throughout their entire work lives until they reached what was determined to be “retirement age” (i.e., 65 years old). While they could opt into the program at the earlier age of 62, they would have to accept a reduced monthly payment that would continue at the lower rate for the remainder of their lives. This reduction in payment dissuaded most individuals from taking advantage of the early option.

Additionally, the standard “retirement age” was based upon actuarial tables that showed that the average life expectancy of males in our country was 65 years (note: males were the dominant demographic in the workforce at the time). Essentially, the program was designed to collect funds from the entire work population for decades while only beginning to repay those who were lucky enough to outlive their life expectancy … and only for as long as they continued to “beat the odds.”

Social Security is currently facing bankruptcy because three things changed: the life expectancy of men dramatically improved; a far greater percentage of women, whose life expectancy is longer than that of men, entered the workforce; and our elected officials invaded the fund and used it for other purposes (something that would constitute embezzlement in the private sector).

While the Government used to understand the “game,” this no longer appears to be the case. Actuarial tables have been replaced by political correctness in an effort to pander to constituencies and procure money and votes.

To standardize coverage and premiums so that everyone can be treated as “equals,” the ACA dictates that statistically significant differences and even absolute certitudes be ignored. Men and women of the same age will now pay the same amount for the same coverage. It’s about time. Fred can finally schedule that annual OB-GYN exam he’s always wanted, and Wanda can get her PSA tested on a regular basis.

Clearly, access to health care insurance isn’t the same as access to health care. If it can’t be customized to meet your needs, you will either pay for more coverage than you need, or you will be left with an untenable level of economic exposure.

Additionally, most people don’t understand how to differentiate between healthcare policies, and the Federal Government is politicizing rather than clarifying the issue. So, let’s try to bridge that gap with an example.

Consider two plans:

  • Plan #1 costs $200 per month and provides an 80 percent co-pay (in-network), 70 co-pay (out-of-network), and carries a $9,600 out-of-pocket deductible.
  • Plan #2 costs $1,000 per month and provides 100 percent coverage (in-network), 80 co-pay (out-of-network), and carries a $1,000 out-of-pocket deductible.

Now, let’s assume your preferred doctor (who charges $100 per visit) is out-of-network under Plan #1 but in-network under Plan #2. So, under Plan #1, you will be paying $30 per doctor’s visit (which will also be charged against your deductible), but those same visits will be absolutely free under Plan #2.

Most people “clearly” see that Plan #2 provides better coverage (i.e., no co-pay and a much lower deductible).

However, your annual premiums would be $12,000 for Plan #2, while they’d only be $2,400 for Plan #1 (a $9,600 annual difference). So, you’d have to go to your preferred doctor 320 times each year (at $30 dollars per visit) to recapture the difference.  By the way, you’d also have met your deductible under Plan #1, so the Plans would be identical at that point.

Most people fail to recognize that health care insurance, like fire insurance, is a bet they are placing against an unlikely circumstance. Premiums represent a prepayment of healthcare expenses that may not be incurred. Barring a pre-existing condition, a known genetic predisposition toward a serious illness, or a lifestyle choice that renders someone more prone to incur a significant health risk, a catastrophic plan may well offer the best overall protection in both the short and long-term.

This is particularly important since proponents of the ACA have recently coined a new technical term to describe catastrophic health care insurance. It is now popularly called “crappy insurance.”

In the example above, “crappy insurance” represented the better value even though it appeared to offer far less coverage on the surface. In addition, its economic advantage would grow dramatically over time.

Interestingly enough, the President is now attempting to grant a one-year reprieve to those “crappy” insurance policies in order to save his Party from a 2014 election cycle that might be reminiscent of Custer’s last stand.

Unfortunately, reinstating the terminated policies in the real world isn’t as easy as signing an Executive Order. It changes the economics of the policy portfolio. It requires a transition program to communicate the availability of the reinstated policies, as well as the submittal, review and approval of new applications. Electronic media would have to be changed. Forms inventory would have to be changed, and potential obsolescence would present a problem. Training and support might also have to be revised.

The insurance companies might determine that it’s not worth the time and money to resurrect these policies for whatever period of a year might remain. However, they will be vilified if they refuse to cover the Administration’s mistake. Then again, there’s a provision in the ACA that suggests that we, the taxpayers, will indemnify the insurance companies against any abnormal losses they might suffer as a result of the ACA, so at least they have insurance.

It’s too bad that our two major Parties continue to suffer from such an acute case of political ignorance. Otherwise, we could have an intelligent discussion about true healthcare reform.

Our Republican leadership can’t seem to make it past “provide for the common Defence (sic)” in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. If they could, they’d see that it also directs us to “provide for… the general Welfare of the United States;” a phrase that supports the concept of true healthcare reform.

Correspondingly, our Democratic leadership has approached health care reform as if it were the subject of a theoretical term paper. Its utter disregard for the practical consequence of its reckless experiment has put one-sixth of the United States economy at risk.

However, there is one positive consequence. The President is no longer referring to the ACA as “Obamacare” as even he tries to distance himself from his landmark legislation.

Putting political ignorance aside:

  • What if we were to consider a form of universal catastrophic health care coverage that was singularly offered by private sector companies?
  • What if the only major regulatory requirement would be that insurance companies share the risk of the managed pool on a comparative revenue (or other) basis?
  • What if we were to offer Health Care Savings accounts (HSAs) to reward responsible behavior?
  • What if we preserved choice by allowing the insurance companies to compete for elective coverage offered in the form of riders?

There are many solutions that could be explored if our Nation wasn’t crippled by political ignorance. Hopefully, we finally find a cure. In the interim, try to stay healthy.

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

Is Obamacare the Landmark Legislation and Political Lesson of Our Time?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 11, 2013 –  Obamacare is the single most significant piece of legislation passed in the last century. Period!

Some will argue that a few of the eleven Constitutional Amendments that have been ratified during that 100-year period may rival the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (the Act’s real name – ACA for short), but they would be wrong.

While a Democratic-controlled House and Senate created the income tax under the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913 and a Republican-controlled House and Senate finally granted Women’s suffrage under the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920, neither Party’s accomplishment measures up to the unique character and impact of the ACA. That is because those Amendments were subject to the standards imposed by Article V of the Constitution, which required a sufficient building of consensus to secure ratification by three-fourths of the States.

Conversely, the ACA made sweeping reforms to a sector that represents one-sixth of the United States’ economy while only passing the House by a vote of 219-212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. The passage of a bill of this magnitude, without any cross-over support, is unparalleled in the annals of our Nation’s history.

As was mentioned in a prior column (Obamacare: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly – October 14, 2013), this “hardball” approach achieved political success where other Administrations had failed. It also provides a raw look at a political environment that appears to be more attributable to Machiavelli than to our Founding Fathers.

In that regard, the “end” was laudable: tens of millions of citizens may ultimately enjoy health care coverage that was beyond their reach prior to the law’s enactment, pre-existing conditions will no longer preclude individuals from securing necessary coverage, and people will no longer be able to be dropped from coverage because they fell victim to a disease or accident…just to name a few. However, the “means” were relatively unconscionable.

Rather than wasting time reiterating the backroom dealings, pork, regulatory bloat, and legislative irresponsibility that pervaded the process (i.e., “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it”), let’s examine the President’s own words as he delivered them to the American Medical Association on June 15, 2009.

In that speech, President Obama described the necessity for health care reform, underscored it with examples, suggested what was broken and how to fix it, and set the stage for repelling any resistance to his signature legislation. After an obligatory reference to the recession he inherited, he began:

“Today, we are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care – almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet, for all this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured; the quality of our care is often lower; and we aren’t any healthier.”

This statement highlights the three key components of real healthcare reform: cost, access, and quality. However, political healthcare reform is driven by only one of them: access. Interestingly enough, it even gets that one wrong.

The President equates access to health care insurance with access to actual health care. While they are related, they are not identical. Real healthcare reform would require access to actual healthcare. Political healthcare reform can stop with access to healthcare insurance and pass the responsibility for the other components of cost and quality to the insurance companies and healthcare providers.

We already have an example of this sleight of hand. The Administration has granted itself absolution with respect to the millions of policies that have been canceled. It is the insurance companies’ fault, not the Government’s; even though the cancelations were required for regulatory compliance reasons. Brace yourself for the next wave, which will address increased policy costs, copays, deductibles, and the shrinkage of in-network healthcare options.

The President then shared some interesting examples of:

  • “…families who have seen out-of-pocket costs soar, and premiums double over the last decade at a rate three times faster than wages;”
  • “…doctors (who spend) 20 percent of each day supervising a staff explaining insurance problems to patients, completing authorization forms, and writing appeal letters;” and
  • “… (a) family-run marketing firm (that) recently had to do the unthinkable and lay off a number of employees – layoffs that could have been deferred, they say, if health care costs weren’t so high.”

Who believes that the 11,000+ pages of regulations that have already been promulgated to implement the ACA will eliminate or even reduce these burdens?

The President went on to explain that “part of the reason (that health care reform hasn’t been achieved in the past) has been the fierce opposition fueled by some interest groups and lobbyists – opposition that has used fear tactics to paint any effort to achieve reform as an attempt to socialize medicine.” Yet, the chief architect of the ACA was a former (and current) lobbyist for the insurance industry, and she received strong assistance from PhRMA. The President even noted that he was “working with AARP to uphold (a) commitment (to the Medicare Trust Fund).” Who believes that the risk of lobbyist influence has been conquered?

Then, President Obama delivered what became his Party’s mantra to gain support for and overcome objections to the ACA when he said: “…we also know that there are those who will try and scuttle this opportunity no matter what – who will use the same scare tactics and fearmongering that’s worked in the past. They’ll give dire warnings about socialized medicine and government takeovers; long lines and rationed care; decisions made by bureaucrats and not doctors. We’ve heard it all before – and because these fear tactics have worked, things have kept getting worse.”

He was astoundingly prophetic as this is exactly what the Republicans did.

To allay our concerns, the President immediately added: “So let me begin by saying this: I know that there are millions of Americans who are content with their health care coverage – they like their plan and they value their relationship with their doctor. And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.”

Recently, President Obama clarified any misperception we may have had with respect to that statement when he said, “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.” How many of you missed that point at the time?

To avoid boring you, the rest of the President’s 2009 speech referenced such goals as:

  • To “stop spending tax dollars to prop up an unsustainable system, and start investing those dollars in innovations” (with no reference to taxing medical devices, etc.);
  • To “upgrade our medical records by switching from a paper to an electronic system” (with no reference to any related security issues or cost of conversion);
  • To revamp “a system that automatically equates more expensive care with better care” (without any reference to how to change that paradigm);
  • To “(reform) the way we compensate our doctors and hospitals…to bundle payments…to create incentives for physicians to team up” (again without reference as to “how”);
  • To “(root) out waste, abuse, and fraud throughout our health care system” (while adding 159 new oversight committees and 11,000+ pages of new regulations to the mix); and
  • To “scale back the excessive (practice of) defensive medicine” (while specifically avoiding any intrusion into the ripe field of tort reform, perhaps because of the power of the associated lobby).

The reason it is important to review these statements and promises is because they came from our Chief Executive, and they laid the groundwork for passing the ACA. It is very possible that, without them, the two vote margin in the House would not have been secured. It is also possible that, without them, the President would not have been rewarded with a second term. We will never know.

What we will learn over time is which of the statements will prove to be true; how many of the solutions will be effectively implemented; and, whether the results will parallel the promises. It will be interesting to observe whether the real ends will justify the means…and for whom.

We will begin to receive measurable results shortly. The Administration has promised to deliver performance numbers for Healthcare.gov later this week, and “the debacle” of a website is to be fully functional as of November 30, 2013. Hopefully, nuanced explanations and Presidential apologies such as, “I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on assurances they got from me,” will no longer be required.

We should be indebted to the ACA (and not just literally). It is not only a landmark piece of legislation based on its scope, but it also provides us with as an important political lesson; more so than any other law in recent history. It provides us with a glimpse into how political messages are crafted and bills are passed at the Federal-level, and it gives rise to a host of questions:

  • Does our current political divide require an “end justifies the means” approach to break the deadlock, or can we demand better?
  • Will we hold our elected officials accountable for their statements, or will we accept the trend of recent years of allowing them to “walk back” what they say?
  • Will we hold the Government accountable for the impact of its regulations, or will we allow it to insulate itself from responsibility by shifting the blame to the purportedly “evil” private sector?
  • And finally, will we ever realize that all of this is within our control?

With respect to the latter, it would be remiss not to thank those who have served our Nation to preserve that right and the rest of the liberties that we enjoy. May all of our veterans enjoy this day which is celebrated in their honor.

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

SECRET REVEALED: The Anti-Trust Strategy of Obama and the Parties

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., November 4, 2013 – Given its current trajectory, the Obama Administration might well be remembered for the tenacity with which it prosecuted an anti-trust campaign. “Anti-trust” isn’t to be confused with the term “antitrust.” The former has nothing to do with the Sherman Act or illegal activities that interfere with the free market system. It refers to a destructive force more akin to a different Sherman’s March to the Sea. It deals with what appears to be an intentional obfuscation of the truth.

  • Establishing trust used to be dependent upon telling the truth. Period!
  • Telling the truth used to mean stating the facts as they truly existed. Period!
  • Exclaiming the word “period” after making a statement used to denote the unequivocal nature of the assertion. Period!

These standards have been abandoned by our political Parties. They either believe that we are too stupid to notice, too weak to respond, or too well-conditioned from a partisan perspective to admit to our Party of preference’s culpability.

Make no mistake: Both parties have been gravitating toward this new reality for decades.

The candidates who run for public office are made to believe that they are insulated from the mundane world in which the rest of us must suffer. They reside in our country’s equivalent to Mt. Olympus; ruling the commoners from above.

We grow and harvest the crops, and they tell us what meager amount we can keep. In return, they protect us by maintaining a massive military force and occasionally by monitoring our e-mails and spying upon our allies’ leaders. As the serfs in this play, it would be “feudal” to complain.

While most of our elected officials might struggle to find employment in the real world, they are able to retain office for generations based on name recognition, gerrymandering, massive campaign budgets, and a willingness to say and do whatever it takes to cease and maintain office.

Appointments are distributed like Halloween treats to those who are best costumed as political fundraisers. The more you raise, the bigger the candy bar you receive. Those who bundle $500 thousand or more in campaign donations are allowed to grab handfuls usually in the form of a Senior White House staff position, an Ambassadorship, or maybe even a Cabinet post.

Little experience or effort is required in return. Most of these appointees are only asked “to be seen and not heard.” A risk arises only when they are subpoenaed by Congress or exposed by the Press; neither of which occurs with any degree of regularity.

When they are called to task, they are expected to plead the Fifth or fall upon their sword. These roles are reserved for lower-level officials who are more likely to be sacrificed if a scapegoat is needed. In return for their loyalty, they are rewarded with the ability to resign with a full pension. This course of conduct has become so commonplace that it is almost a fait accompli if the Administration encounters a “bump in the road” whether it arises in a “fast and furious” manner or in a more “taxing” way, and the appointees understand it. After all, they are not slow “Lerners.”

Claiming responsibility is reserved for those who hold higher levels of appointment. If the word “Secretary” precedes the rest of their title, they may actually be required to say, “I’m responsible” or “Hold me accountable for the debacle.”

However, don’t mistake this to be a sincere mea culpa. It is a political charade that is orchestrated to assuage the masses and deter further inquiry. The lamb is placed upon the altar, but it never loses its political life. The sacrificial rite is only a ruse.

Documentary evidence is delivered at a glacial pace and is usually heavily redacted. On a few occasions, it may even be protected by the rare invocation of Executive Privilege, which a few short decades ago was tantamount to an admission of guilt.

Non-appointed Government employees represent the greatest threat to the political anti-trust movement. Their testimony is considered to be a threat because it is less controllable. So, they are often “discouraged” from coming forward even though “Forward” is the ostensible mantra of this Administration’s second term.

You’ve probably noticed that the Chief Executive position has not been mentioned. Unlike the private sector in which CEOs are often held strictly accountable for the mistakes of their organizations, this is not the case in the public sector. Presidents have become the monarchs of the ruling class, and our current President is no exception.

There is a quiet handshake between the Parties that Presidents are immune from assuming ultimate responsibility for anything other than stellar victories. A President can take credit for a successful covert operation that occurs 7,000 miles away, but he or she must never admit to knowing about any abuse of power that might occur within the very departments and agencies that are direct reports. We are asked to believe that our President learns of those matters from the evening news just as we do. Throw in a Press Secretary to serve as court jester for the media brigade and you have the perfect mix to concoct an “anti-trust” environment in which the truth no longer matters.

Perhaps this also explains how the political divide became so explosive and expansive.

The Republican Party had the audacity to breach the “handshake” and impeach President Clinton in the House on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice (not for his sexual dalliances in the Oval Office as many believe). While it fell five votes short of the required two-thirds majority in the Senate to convict and remove him from Office, the stage had been set.

Since then, the Democrats spent the next presidential two terms vilifying President Bush and continued the practice well into President Obama’s first term.  In retaliation, the Republicans have wasted a great deal of time and money trying to return the favor at the expense of President Obama.

As a result, most of the Parties’ accusations have more to do with political reprisal than with the truth. The same can be said with respect to many of their explanations. With the waning importance of the truth, we are left to observe a once-vaunted political system that has become a theater of the absurd.

During the campaign season, promises to rule the day and their veracity is never questioned. We are promised “change,” bipartisan accord, and complete transparency. After the election, we get “more of the same,” partisan conflict, and compulsive misrepresentation and denial.

Pick the administrative faux pas of your choice: Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the politically tainted abuse of power of the IRS, the NSA invasion of privacy of your choice, the abject failure of Heathcare.gov, etc. The response pattern doesn’t vary, and it overtly dismisses any possibility of repercussions from the electorate. Why?

  • Are we really that stupid?
  • Do we just feel too weak to respond (i.e., there’s nothing we can do)?
  • Have we been conditioned to behave in a purely partisan manner (i.e., we blindly believe the President of our particular Party is infallible while viewing any President of the other Party as nearly satanic)?
  • Or have we just abandoned any hope of hearing the truth from our elected officials and accepted the “anti-trust” environment as our political reality moving forward?

Perhaps all of these are applicable to a degree. If so, what percentage do you think applies to each explanation? In the alternative, you may have another explanation. If so, what is it? If we don’t begin to challenge the direction in which the Administration and Parties are heading, we will continue to experience an unremitting decline of the truth, and the concept of trust will become nothing more than a memory.

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

HALLOWEEN POLITICS: Disguises, Tricks, and Glitches create an ObamaScare

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 28, 2013 – BREAKING NEWS: Democrats and Republicans, whose political tactics are frighteningly similar, have secretly merged into a single entity. The new political group will be called the Halloween Party.

The fledgling Party is a political Frankenstein. Strategists have long recognized the importance of combining the two organizations while maintaining the charade of their separate existence. With a shared addiction to money and power, why compete for half the dollars and votes when you can get them all? You just have to pretend that you’re not who you appear to be … but that’s what Halloween is all about.

The Party is smart. It will still adorn its members in different “costumes.” Half of its troops will don variations of its Statute of Liberty line (“Liberty” for short), while the others will be cloaked in the Party’s Patriot series.

The Liberty theme is inspired by the inscription “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” This clever design suggests that those wearing the disguise actually care about the tired, the poor, and the huddled masses among which they include minorities and helpless women. It also creates the appearance of a deep rooted concern for the exercise of freedoms such as speech.

Similarly, the Patriot series swaths members in the Constitution and a flag that says Don’t Tread on Me. The pattern suggests that those who favor it are champions of small government, fiscal responsibility, freedom of religion, Defense, elimination of our dependence on foreign oil, and the shutting down of regulatory agencies such as the EPA.

Both costume sets are designed to allow Party members to masquerade as something they’re not. After all, that’s what Halloween is about… dressing up as something or someone that is entirely out of character with your own persona. If the Party wasn’t orchestrating these outfits, almost every elected official would choose to wear a lab coat and an Einstein mask.

Those who don the Liberty line have no real allegiance to the poor, minorities, or women. If they did, they would have done something to help those people over the years. After all, the Democratic Party has held dominant control over Washington, D.C., for years.

Since the New Deal (1933), Democrats have held the Presidency 56% of the time and enjoyed “one-party rule” of the Legislative Branch 76% of the time (controlling both the House and Senate). They’ve even held a majority in both Chambers 61% of the time that a Republican served as President. That’s about as unobstructed as the Government gets.

You would think that the words “poor” and “minority” would no longer be politically relevant and that women would have gained self-sufficiency by now. Instead, the gap between the poor and the rich has reached epic proportions in recent years and continued to grow over the last five years.

Minorities in particular have been crushed during that time frame. Median net worth and net income levels have deteriorated far more for minorities than they have for non-minorities, and unemployment has followed a similar pattern.

We’re also told that women, who are otherwise portrayed as strong and independent, apparently need Government assistance to survive. If birth control isn’t offered for free, it’s tantamount to waging a war on them. While the women of Afghanistan may view such hardship differently, it points to the effectiveness of the Liberty costume.

The appearance of support for “free speech” is particularly well done. The burning of flags and bibles is protected. Just don’t apply those same rules to the Quran.

Any verbal expression of speech is also defended unless it is at odds with the platform of the Democratic Party. Then, the debate will be shut down with the incredibly overused argument of “false equivalence” (i.e., our position may be ludicrous, but the other side’s position is so heinous we shouldn’t be held accountable for ours) and words such as “racist,” “homophobe,” and “misogynist.” The Republicans would easily be able to counter with the word “hypocrite” if it wasn’t so readily applicable to them as well.

Not to be outdone, the Patriot disguise is equally cunning.

Hiding behind the camouflage of the Constitution (a document that many apparently either have not read or do not understand), those who wear the Patriot costume project the image previously described (i.e., advocating smaller government, fiscal responsibility, etc.).

However, neither the Government nor the budget has contracted under Republican leadership. While it is true that the Republican Party has been “outgunned” by the Democratic Party (no Second Amendment pun intended) with regard to Presidents (45-36) and “one-party ruled” Legislative sessions (54-14), it has routinely contributed to the growth of Government and Federal spending when it has been in power. It simply has done both in favor of its voting blocks and sources of monetary support.

While those who conceal themselves behind this mask will derisively declare how President Obama has exceeded the entire debt amassed by all the Administrations that preceded his, you will never hear them admit that the precedent was actually set by the Bush Administration, which achieved the same dubious distinction. Regardless of which Party has been in power, the game has remained the same: use the power to repay political debts. That’s why operating behind the scenes as a single Party makes so much sense.

Evangelical Republicans particularly enjoy parading around in the Patriot outfit. They are fond of chanting the mantra that we are “One Nation under God” while ignoring the fact that the First Amendment requires our Government to remain agnostic to protect one’s free exercise of religion. Instead, they prefer to emphasize our country’s Christian origin. Perhaps the confusion comes from knowing which of the 30,000+ variations of Christianity that are practiced in the United States is the one we should follow.

Then, there is the issue of Defense. When was the last time you heard anyone in the Republican Party compliment the Carter Administration for establishing many of the Defense programs that led to the technological superiority that currently distinguishes our Nation’s military?

Correspondingly, that same Administration founded the Department of Energy with the express purpose of eliminating our Nation’s dependence on foreign oil. While the DOE has been an abject failure, the concept sounds very Republican.

Similarly, you’ve undoubtedly heard the Republican Party castigate the Environmental Protection Agency for its “leftist” agenda. Keep in mind the EPA was formed under the direction of the Nixon Administration.

Are you beginning to see why the Halloween Party makes so much sense? Operating only one Party is far more efficient. They only need the illusion of a political divide to keep the money flowing.

Think about it.

If they didn’t have each other to blame and they didn’t have the ability to shape “trick” messages so you’d feel a sense of urgency to “treat” them with a donation rather than risk allowing the other Party to “win,” there would be no reason to donate anything to them … ever.

The whole model of buying your vote with your money would be ruined. If your donations went away, the Parties would no longer be able to afford the attack ad campaigns they use to convince you to vote for the candidates and issues they pick for you. In a sense, you would be left to independently compare their solutions and candidates to the other choices you may have and to reach decisions that are in your best interests rather than those of the Parties.

In that regard, the tradition of walking the precincts and shouting “trick or treat” will be replaced with an endless stream of e-mails, robocalls, and negative advertising to maintain control over you.

The Halloween Party will even attack its own programs to hide the fact that only one Party actually exists. Take the Affordable Care Act as an example … code name: ObamaScare.

For more than three years, Republicans tried to repeal or defund ObamaScare. They claimed it was fatally flawed and would lead to the collapse of our healthcare system and economy.

During that same period, Democrats argued that ObamaScare was “the greatest thing since sliced bread” and would revolutionize healthcare (including its cost).

Once the Halloween Party was formed, it quickly realized that there were merits to both arguments, and they needed a solution. However, if the two sides cooperated too quickly, people might begin to suspect that they were in collusion and the existence of the Party might be exposed.

They needed a diversion, and confusion is always a good one in the political arena.

The Party needed a waiver for the business community to prevent economic unrest, but it couldn’t grant one to the people or the program’s defects would become too obvious. So, it orchestrated a role reversal by having its Liberty members grant the deferral to business while denying it to the people. It had to happen without a petition by Patriot members to avoid any appearance of cooperation.

Then, the Liberty and Patriot members engaged in what seemed to be a budget and debt ceiling battle that mysteriously depended upon their ostensible positions on ObamaScare. The Government was even shut down for effect.

During the negotiations, the Patriot faction requested a delay in implementation for the people. Liberty members said, “Absolutely not,” and the Halloween Party had the two kick the can down the road for a few months.

Almost immediately, it became obvious that the ObamaScare website was a complete debacle. So, the Halloween Party once again choreographed a role reversal.

This time, its Patriot members called for the rollout to go forward, and its Liberty members began to clamor for a delay; the exact opposite of what the same two groups had disagreed upon leading to the Government shutdown.

Confused yet? The Halloween Party certainly hopes so!

We are now told that ObamaScare is a solid program that simply has a defective website. One of the Party’s shills has stated that 3 1/2 years simply wasn’t enough time to develop the website; it really should have had 6 years of development and testing. Try to ignore the fact that the Manhattan Project only took 4 years including testing. Then again, we’re talking about designing a complex website; Fermi and that Einstein guy were only splitting atoms and exploring previously unknown areas of nuclear energy.

Speaking of which, how long do you think it will be before the Halloween Party uses the Manhattan Project to defend contracting the website to a Canadian firm that had been fired by its own government? After all, the Manhattan Project essentially was subcontracted to scientists from Italy and Germany who happened to have sought asylum here.

Interestingly, the Manhattan Project may provide an idea for one more diversion. The Party may choose to distract attention by raising a separate issue: Immigration.

Do you see the connection?  If we hadn’t allowed Fermi and Einstein to immigrate to the United States, we would not have had the ability to become a nuclear power. Who knows how many “undocumented” Fermis and Einsteins are already here just waiting to be granted citizenship? Maybe a few of them could even design a website.

In the interim, try to avoid ghosts, goblins, glitches, and kinks … and have a Happy Halloween!

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more

President Reopens Government with a Warning

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., October 21, 2013 – Not to be disrespectful, but President Obama misled the American people at the conclusion of the speech with which he reopened the Government on October 17, 2013. He chided partisan politics by saying: “We come from different Parties, but we are Americans first. And that’s why disagreement cannot mean dysfunction. It can’t degenerate into hatred.”

Of course, it can, Mr. President. Look at the actions of both Parties leading up to the shutdown and in the brief time that has passed since; listen to the rhetoric of the Parties and those groups that support them; or just read other facets of your speech.

Dysfunction defines partisan politics in today’s world.  Building upon gross generalizations and negative accusations allows the Parties to play upon people’s fear, guilt, and greed until those emotions can be fanned into something tantamount to hatred. The tactic is used to divide and conquer; it impedes legitimate political competition; and it extracts the money and votes that are necessary to maintain Party power.

Let’s examine the actions of the Republican and Democratic Parties before and after the most recent “manufactured” crises, and then, Mr. President, we’ll examine yours.

When it comes to the budget and our National debt, the Republican Party wants us to believe that Congressional Democrats are profligate spenders who fund programs that are both ineffective and never-ending. While this may be true, it ignores the fact that Congressional Republicans are also profligate spenders who fund programs that are both ineffective and never-ending.

The Democratic Party wants us to believe that Congressional Republicans are fundamentally committed to creating loopholes in the law that line the pockets of those who fund their campaigns. While this may be true, it ignores the fact that Congressional Democrats are also fundamentally committed to creating loopholes in the law that line the pockets of those who fund their campaigns.

The Democrat-controlled Senate failed to produce a federal budget from April 29, 2009, until May 25, 2013. Congressional Republicans argue that this is a clear violation of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which requires a concurrent resolution to be reached no later than April 15th of each year. The Republicans are correct in this regard.

However, when the Democrat-controlled Senate did finally produce a budget this year, Congressional Republicans refused to appoint budget conferees until the night before the shutdown was to take place. In fact, Congressional Republicans blocked requests to convene a budget conference 18 times prior to that date.

Of course, while Congressional Democrats complained about this Republican “obstruction,” they refused to appoint conferees when the Republicans finally offered to conference with them; an offer that otherwise would have averted the shutdown. Instead, Congressional Democrats professed to have no culpability in allowing the shutdown to move forward and declared it to be a “Republican Shutdown.”

Conversely, the Republican Party referred to the stalemate as a “Democratic Shutdown” or, in the alternative, the “President’s Shutdown.” However, two things are clear: The Republicans have absolutely no idea how to successfully craft a political message, and it is unlikely that this President will ever be held accountable for anything.

In the spirit of true compromise, maybe this particular act should be referred to as an “Irresponsible and Infantile Shutdown.” That would seem to be a far more accurate description.

President Obama’s skill and influence were also on full display. He remained disengaged from the debate until it was too late; just as he did when the nation faced the debt ceiling “crisis” in the summer of 2011.

Then, the President inflated the significance of the shutdown well beyond the 17 percent of the Government that it actually impacted. The sky was falling, and we were all going to die “because of a few irresponsible Republicans” (i.e., Senator Ted Cruz and his fellow “Tea Party” Republicans) and the fact that Speaker Boehner had “lost control of the Republican Caucus” in the House.

Just as had occurred in the initial days of the sequester, decisions were made in the Executive Branch that tangibly impacted citizens of the United States and lowered other nation’s respect for our country. National monuments were shut down at a cost that exceeded keeping them open; national cemeteries were closed for no apparent reason; entrances to national parks were blocked; and profitable public events were canceled and turned into losses … all to make a political point.

In the past 17 shutdowns, we had leadership that was embarrassed by its failure and went to great lengths to mitigate any exposure that might be incurred by the American people. That is no longer the model. Instead, our leaders inflict as much pain as possible in hopes of securing a political advantage in the next election.

When some of the decisions raised more public ire than was anticipated, our elected officials simply disavowed knowledge of who made the decisions and tried to cover them with a political Band-Aid while blaming the other side. That’s what passes for leadership in Washington, D.C., today.

Upon ending the shutdown and temporarily averting the debt ceiling, everyone claimed victory while nothing was really accomplished.

Some members of the Republican Party declared a moral victory. It’s almost the only kind of political victory that Party has earned in recent years. While on a Cincinnati radio program, a more subdued Speaker John Boehner admitted, “We fought the good fight. We just didn’t win.”

In an interesting twist, the Tea Party was apparently resurrected. While it had been proclaimed “dead” by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid earlier in the year, it was now predominantly blamed for the fiasco. The political translation is that its impact on the 2014 mid-term elections is still feared.

Remarkably, several high-profile darlings of the Tea Party movement have tried to raise their profiles from the ashes of the shutdown.

Senator Cruz, who taught us when a “filibuster” isn’t a “filibuster,” did provide some educational moments during his protracted monologue. He had an excellent segment in which he provided a historical perspective of how our Nation and its Constitution evolved. That he was able to do so without the assistance of a TelePrompTer added to the significance of the event. Unfortunately, the media seemed more preoccupied with his apparent misunderstanding of Green Eggs and Ham.

In an entertaining paradox, Senate Majority Leader Reid scolded Senator Cruz at the end of the latter’s soliloquy, describing it as “a big waste of time” that interfered with the Senate’s important business. The Majority Leader noted, “With all due respect, I’m not sure we learned anything new.” When the Senate resumed its normal schedule, we were treated to what could best be described as another big waste of time in which we learned nothing new.

Senator Cruz has since been hailed by his supporters as a man of principle, and he has become the poster child for defeating “Obamacare” by any means necessary and at any cost. Unfortunately, while he seemingly has a strong understanding of our Constitution’s history, he seems to lack an understanding of certain relevant components of that document.

Specifically, a bill has to pass both the House and the Senate by a majority vote. Then, it has to be signed by the President. If the President chooses to exercise the power of veto, the bill only becomes law if two-thirds of the Senate votes to override such veto.

Let’s do the math. There are 52 Democrats in the Senate, along with 2 Independents who caucus with the Democrats, versus 46 Republicans. In today’s polarized political environment, assuming Majority Leader Reid even lets a bill to repeal or defund “Obamacare” get to the floor, it will lose. Even if such a bill somehow secures a simple majority in the Senate, the President is on record as promising to veto it and there is no realistic way to override that veto in the current Senate. Thanks for playing!

The stunning defeat also revived the effervescent cheerleaders, Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Ms. Palin embarrassed herself in an interview with Fox News host, Megyn Kelly, by trying to force in every talking point she had been given. One can only surmise that she was told to read whatever was written on her hand before allowing a question to be asked.

Additionally, there was Representative Michelle Bachmann, who described the reopening of our Government as “a very sad day.” At a rally, she boldly called for the President to be impeached and even filed a resolution with the House calling for the same.

Rep. Bachmann said, “…in shutting down the government, President Obama has committed economic treason against the United States of America, and he must be removed before it’s too late.” It would be interesting to hear her explain why she believes that reopening the Government is “a very sad day” while she also believes that shutting down the Government is “economic treason.” Then again, it doesn’t really matter since there is no such crime as “economic treason.”

Treason is the only crime that is actually defined in the Constitution (Article III, Section 3): “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” Rep. Bachmann would be well advised to read that document someday given that she was also “going to repeal Obamacare on (her) first day in office” had she been elected President; a power that the Constitution does not afford a President.

Not to be outdone: The Progressive movement has had similar moments of absurdity as it’s taken its victory lap.

In an attempt to appear as irrational and uninformed as the Palin/Bachmann contingent, Moveon.org allowed a petition to be posted that called for the arrest of “Republican Majority Leader Eric Cantor, Speaker of the House John Boehner, and other decision-making House Republican leaders for the crime of seditious conspiracy against the United States of America.” Coincidently, the petition has recorded nearly as many signatures as the Affordable Care Act has recorded enrollees. In any event, it’s good to see that neither political faction has a monopoly on either misreading or ignoring the letter of the law (see Section 2384 of the Federal Penal Code in this regard).

Similarly, in the heat of the battle, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi proclaimed on CNN’s State of the Union that, “The cupboard is bare. There’s (sic) no more cuts to make.” Perhaps the Republicans do have a point when challenging whether Congressional Democrats will ever negotiate a budget in good faith without other legislative pressure.

Then, there is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who joined House Minority Leader Pelosi (and even President Obama) in arguing that all Speaker Boehner had to do was put a clean Continuing Resolution to a vote. This is the same Senate Majority Leader who has effectively created a political black hole into which nearly all Republican-sponsored House bills are crushed by his tyrannical exercise of discretion before they ever reach the floor for a vote.

This brings us to the President.

President Obama was absolutely amazing both during and after the budget and debt crises. He remained cool and calm at all times; even playing golf the day before 800,000 Government employees were to be furloughed. Then again, when your negotiating strategy is to refuse to negotiate, maybe this should be expected.

After his famous speech following the shooting of Representative Gabby Giffords (2011), he called upon the Parties to use language that “heals” rather than “wounds.” Using terms like “arsonists” to describe certain Congressional Republicans and suggesting that he was being asked to negotiate “with a gun to the head of the American people,” he led by example; an example that Majority Leader Reid, Press Secretary Carney, and other members of the White House staff eagerly took to the next level with language such as “anarchists,” “terrorists,” “suicide bombers,” and “jihadists.”

The President also showed great restraint. He was able to wait until the second sentence of the speech with which he reopened the Government before he denigrated elements of the Republican Party.

Then, the President skillfully shifted focus in his second paragraph. He said, “These last few weeks have inflicted completely unnecessary damage on our economy. We don’t know yet the full scope of the damage, but every analyst out there believes it slowed our growth.” That set the stage to blame any future policy failures on the “Republican Shutdown.” Brilliant!

The President continued, “We know that families have gone without paychecks or services they depend on.  We know that potential homebuyers have gotten fewer mortgages, and small business loans have been put on hold.  We know that consumers have cut back on spending and that half of all CEOs say that the shutdown and the threat of shutdown set back their plans to hire over the next six months.  We know that just the threat of default — of America not paying all the bills that we owe on time — increased our borrowing costs, which adds to our deficit.” 

Keep in mind that the shutdown only lasted 16 days and affected 17 percent of the Federal Government (with Government employees scheduled to get back pay). Yet, an economic Armageddon is being described. Why?

Next, consider the fact that what even the President now refers to as a “manufactured crisis” could have been reasonably anticipated and averted. Any possibility of the budget crisis would have been eliminated had Congress simply complied with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

The President also could have helped by submitting a timely and responsible budget as is required by the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. Instead, he submitted budgets that were markedly late four of his five years in Office; budgets that went down to defeat in the Democrat-controlled Senate by votes of 97-0 and 99-0 in the two prior years before passing by a vote of 51-49 this year.

President Obama’s speech went on to misdefine the role of Government under the Constitution, but that almost seems to be in vogue these days. He also noted, “… that (economic recovery) won’t be easy.  We all know that we have divided government right now.”

That raises an interesting question. Is economic (or social progress) any more difficult under a divided Government than it is under a united Government? If it is, the Democrats have some explaining to do.

A total of 81 years have passed since the New Deal fundamentally changed our Nation’s direction under President Franklin D. Roosevelt. A Democrat has served as President in 45 of those years with the benefit of a Democrat-controlled Congress (i.e., House and Senate) in 34 of those years, a Republican-controlled Congress in 8 of those years, and a divided Congress in only 3 of those years.

Comparatively, the Republican Party has held the Presidency in only 36 of those 81 years. It enjoyed the benefit of a Republican-controlled Congress only 6 of those years while facing a Democrat-controlled Congress 22 of those years and a divided Congress in the remaining 8 years.

If you don’t like how far we’ve come, you now know which Party to blame.

It is time for the rabble-rousers to get out of the way of those who are willing to lead our Nation responsibly. In that regard, please answer two questions:

What suggestions can you offer that would align the collection of taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to “provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States” as prescribed by Article I, section 8 of the Constitution?
What suggestions can you offer with respect to election reform that will help us break our “definition of insanity” habit of electing the same people over and over again and expecting a different result?

Otherwise, the President’s implied prophesies will come to fruition: We will be burdened with the “dysfunction” of partisan politics and our differences will “degenerate into hatred.”

__________

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 section of The Washington Times.

Read more