Category: Politics

Recession-Depression: Who cares if you demagogue?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., June 1, 2011 – President Obama invited Speaker Boehner and other House Republicans to the White House this morning to discuss the budget crisis.  Freshman Rep. Jeff Landry (R-La.) declined the invitation stating, “I don’t intend to spend my morning being lectured …”  Despite Rep. Landry’s trepidation that this session might be the President’s reprise of his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu, Speaker Boehner described the discussion as “frank” and “productive.”   

TRANSLATION:  Nothing was really accomplished.

But why should we worry?  We’ve gone from $9 trillion in debt to $14.3 trillion in just a few years.  That proves we can do it!  Maybe we can “double down” and get it to $28.6 trillion as fast as you can say, “Place your bets.”

Some have claimed that the issue of our national debt has been overstated because we can just print more money.  There goes their chance to win the Nobel Prize in Economics … no matter how easy it is to win one of those awards these days.

This brings us to the most popular word on the Hill today:  “demagogue.”  According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, a “demagogue” is “a leader who makes use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises to gain power.”

No wonder “demagogue” is such a popular word.  It may be the only word that accurately describes both of the major Parties’ most avid supporters.  Of course, “petty,” “egotistical” and a few other less “politically correct” words might work as well, but “demagogue” seems so much more sophisticated!

So, let’s explore the “popular prejudices and false claims and promises” the Parties use to begin the “demagogue” process.

As we all know, Democrats are bleeding-heart liberals who would give away every hard-earned dollar of someone else’s money to God-less, lazy bums who just want a handout and are probably in this country illegally … and Republicans are cold-blooded, capitalist pigs who want to kill old people and take advantage of the poor and middle-class so they can line their coffers with more money than anyone deserves and gloat about it at church.

If you happen to agree with either of these scenarios, you can stop reading now.  One of the Parties already owns your soul.

If you think both definitions are a bit extreme, there may be hope for you.  Whether you survive the Parties’ intellectual onslaughts is up to you.

Do you watch multiple news channels and listen to different stations … or do you just follow the ones that lean your way?  Do you read multiple publications … or only those that generally agree with your point of view?  Do you research statements made by politicians … or do you just accept the ones made by those who are members of your party of choice and reject those made by members of the “opposition?”  As the saying goes, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.”

With respect to our current economic crisis, Democrats (who haven’t proposed a budget) are quick to claim that the Republican budget is an insidious attempt to “kill Medicare” and that the death of Social Security can’t be far behind; that Republicans want to kill these “entitlements” to provide tax relief to “big oil;” and that Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich while funding the government “upon the backs of middle-class citizens.”

Republicans counter those assertions with the claims that the Democrats want to expand our “already-out-of-control spending” only by “taxing the rich” (who the Republicans portrayed as the backbone of America and the key to private sector job growth); that Democrats “don’t want to fix the deficit” because they want to force our nation into Socialist reform; and that Democrats refuse to consider cuts to any special interest programs that might cost them votes (thus raising fear among the rich).

Either these two mantras are reflective of demagoguery at its worst, or both Parties should be expelled from Washington, D.C., and banned from ever returning.

The reality is that our nation is suffering from a financial crisis of potentially epic proportions.  As a result, all alternatives should be on the table … from taxes to entitlements.

As I described in The National Platform of Common Sense, a good starting point would be Article I, Section 8 of The Constitution of the United States.  That section prescribes the basis upon which the Legislative Branch of our government can raise money and for what purpose it may do so.  Specifically:  “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States.”  It tells us that “… all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States” and that Congress also has the right “To borrow money on the credit of the United States.”

If Congress restricted its attention to those programs that impact “the common Defence (sic) and general Welfare of the United States,” delineating appropriate budgetary cuts would be considerably less daunting.  Once such cuts were defined, Congress could back into the level of taxation that would be required to fund the programs that remained.

The key is to ignore the fictional world of politics and apply the rules of the real world in which the rest of us live.  Think of it this way:  if you didn’t have enough money to maintain your current lifestyle and were spiraling out of control toward bankruptcy, what would you do?

The first step that most people would take would be to cut any unnecessary expenses until such time that cash inflows match cash outflows.  This is because expenses are the easiest budgetary element to control; cutting them generally offers the most immediate impact; and they can be prioritized in a reasonably straight-forward way.

Vacations, luxury items, and other discretionary expenditures would go first.  Basic food and healthcare would be cut last.  You would probably “downsize” certain facets of your life (e.g., housing, etc.) and consider other less expensive alternatives in others (i.e., a smaller car, mass transit, etc.).  No one would think you were crazy.  Everyone would understand.

On the other side of the equation, you could try to raise your income.  You might try to find a second job or perhaps a new one that pays more.  You might begin selling unnecessary assets or redeploying them in a way that produces revenue (renting property, etc.).  You might even try to acquire additional job skills that would lead to a higher level of compensation in the long term.

What you wouldn’t do is NOTHING.  You wouldn’t continue to spend at your current rate, and you certainly wouldn’t spend at an accelerated one.  You wouldn’t borrow money to buy a shovel to dig a deeper financial hole nor would you expect some other party to “bail you out.”  You would take responsibility for your choices and take all necessary actions that were within your control to stabilize your situation.  Why can’t Congress do the same?

During his State of the Union address, President Obama said, “We do big things.”

The idea of America endures.  Our destiny remains our choice.  And tonight, more than two centuries later, it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong.”

Let’s “do big things” starting with exhibiting an intelligent level of fiscal responsibility.

Let’s recognize that “our destiny remains our choice.”  Democrats and Republicans can continue to “demagogue” to fix the blame … or they can begin to work together to fix the problem.

The Parties and their devotees need to recognize that “it is because of our people that our future is hopeful, our journey goes forward, and the state of our union is strong” … not because of any skewed ideologies that “make use of popular prejudices and false claims and promises to gain power.”  (If you need clarity with respect to how weak the Parties’ National Platforms really are, read The Left isn’t Right / The Right is Wrong.)

So, let’s put the Party rhetoric “on hold” and take a common sense approach to resolving our current challenge.  Don’t make The Common Sense Czar come out of retirement to put our economic equivalent of Humpty Dumpty “together again.”

__________

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

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

Read more

What do the US and the Middle East have in common?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 24, 2011 – A funny thing happened while listening to President Obama’s speech about the Middle East last week.  If you juxtapose his pronouncements with respect to the Middle East with the course we are actually following in the United States, it paints an interesting picture.

After an obligatory compliment about how Hillary Clinton is “one of the finest Secretaries of State in our nation’s history,” the President said, “Today, I would like to talk about change.”  It was almost a throwback to the 2008 campaign trail.

Then, he spoke briefly about how “bin Laden was no martyr” and how “his (bin Laden’s) agenda focused on what he could destroy – not what he could build.”  Well said, Mr. President!

It was then that an intellectual revelation began to evolve.  The trick was to substitute the United States for whatever country the President was referring.

For example, the President began talking about the upheaval in the Middle East as follows:  “That story of self-determination began six months ago in Tunisia … (when) a young vendor … was devastated when a police officer confiscated his cart.”  Substitute “United States” for “Tunisia” and the phrase “when a bank foreclosed on his home” for “when a police officer confiscated his cart” and you begin to get the picture.

The President continued, “This was not unique.  It is the same kind of humiliation that takes place every day in many parts of the world – the relentless tyranny of governments that deny their citizens dignity.”

How prophetic!  Are not many of our citizens denied their dignity because of the failure of our government to “provide for the common defense and general welfare” when it comes to this country’s economic stability?

President Obama explained, “In too many countries, a citizen like that young vendor had nowhere to turn – no honest judiciary to hear his case; no independent media to give him voice; no credible political party to represent his views; no free and fair election where he could choose his leader.”

Let’s see … “no honest judiciary.”  Didn’t constituents of both major parties in Wisconsin just spend over $3 million in campaign ads to try to elect a “favorable” Justice to that State’s Supreme Court?  Who says, “Justice is blind?”

Then there’s the phrase “no independent media to give him voice.”  Do you recall those on the Right arguing about the left-wing media (or “Lame Stream Media” as Sarah Palin likes to call it)?  However, let’s not forget about those on the Left who think that conservative talk radio should be banned or who refer to Fox News as “Faux News.”

“No credible political party to represent his views” is almost axiomatic, and “no free and fair election where he could choose his leader” comes a little too close to home.  Elections are virtually bought and sold in today’s political environment … if not directly, then indirectly by the countless millions of dollars spent on misleading attack ads.  Then, there’s the problem with falsified voter registration … all in the name of Party politics.  On the bright side, some of us will apparently still be voting long after we’re dead.

A little later, the President stated, “In the face of these challenges, too many leaders in the region tried to direct their people’s grievances elsewhere.  The West was blamed as the source of all ills, a half-century after the end of colonialism.”

Luckily, we never witness that type of “misdirection” in the United States.  Our politicians demonstrate leadership by accepting their responsibility to improve upon the circumstances they “inherited” without feeling the need to blame their predecessors … well, at least a few of them do.

Then, President Obama stated that “Divisions of tribe, ethnicity, and religious sect were manipulated as a means of holding on to power, or taking it away from somebody else.”

This is almost a basic tenet of political power in the United States.  If you don’t believe me, just read the Democratic and Republican National Platforms as they’re exposed in The Left isn’t Right / The Right is Wrong.  I call it the “Oppressed Minority Strategy.”

The President correctly acknowledged that “change of this magnitude does not come easily.  In our day and age – a time of 24-hour news cycles, and constant communication – people expect the transformation of the region to be resolved in a matter of weeks.”

The reality is that we live in a Twitter world:  we lose interest in about 140 hours (rather than 140 characters).  Think about it.  The nuclear incident in Japan hasn’t just disappeared; the debt ceiling is still an issue; the Midwest is still flooded … but we lose interest and move on to the next big story.  Heck, Newt Gingrich’s viability as a Presidential candidate didn’t last 140 hours!

Then, the speech became even more fascinating.  The President said, “… we will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners.”   Yet, we tolerate aggression across our own borders and prosecute States that have a compelling need to defend their citizens.

Some members of our Jewish community may also take umbrage with how well we “keep our commitments to friends and partners” given some of the President’s follow-up comments about Israel.  But let’s not quibble about whether his position “bordered” on being pretentious.

According to the President, “Societies held together by fear and repression may offer the illusion of stability for a time, but they are built upon fault lines that will eventually tear asunder.” 

Speaking of “fear and repression,” how recently have you heard Republicans warn us of an impending economic collapse if we don’t eliminate programs like Planned Parenthood from the budget?  Correspondingly, how recently have you heard Democrats claim that Republicans are plotting to end Medicare and Social Security because they’d rather give tax breaks to “big oil?”  There’s an old phrase that just seems to be appropriate:  “Poppycock!”

Continuing, the President said, “We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders.”  Here! Here! … as they say in England.

Unfortunately, “free speech” is too often shrouded by an attack of “political correctness.”  You’re entitled to have an opinion but only if it is in alignment with a particular Party’s position (and not necessarily the Party with which you are affiliated).  Otherwise, you’re “ignorant,” “radical,” “unpatriotic,” “racist,” “ageist,” “sexist,” or a “religious fanatic.”

You have “the freedom of peaceful assembly” … unless, of course, you’re a union or Tea Party member.  Then, you’re a stupid, violent thug if you gather anywhere to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

You have “freedom of religion” as long as it’s a fashionable, politically correct, designer-label type of religion … or no religion at all.  But if you want to sing Christmas carols on a street corner or wear a yarmulke while you shop … well, God forbid!

Then there’s the issue of “equality for men and women under the rule of law.”  A concept like that would require equal pay for equal work, identical promotional opportunities, and a whole raft of societal changes that some people apparently just aren’t ready to embrace.  It could even lead to a discussion about the whole “same-sex marriage” thing … but as many of our politicians have explained in the Oval Office and to their housekeeping staff, traditional marriage is sacred.

As for “the right to choose your own leaders” … well, that’s also a tough pill to swallow.  Caucuses tell us who our candidates are going to be (whatever a “caucus” is).

Picture what was previously a smoke-filled room (now banned by political correctness and a greater awareness of cancer) replaced by a room filled with cappuccinos, lattes, and herbal teas of assorted flavors … and a bunch of political zealots with limited real-world experience who believe our country would be better served if only their Party existed.  They struggle to plan a $ 25,000-a-plate fund-raiser at which their candidate will pontificate about his or her concern for the poor.  Much later, you get to pick from among the scraps of candidates who survive the vetting process.

Moving on … the President said, “This speaks to the hypocrisy of the Iranian regime, which says it stand (sic) for the rights of protesters abroad, yet suppresses its people at home.”  While in our country, certain high-profile political officials have stated how they “stand in solidarity with the Egyptian / Libyan / Syrian / (name the country of your choice) protesters” while demeaning Tea Party protesters to be violent, racist individuals who are more akin to Nazis.  In honor of former Navy SEAL, Mr. Rogers, “Can you say hypocrite?  Sure you can!”

President Obama made another important point:  “We will support open access to the Internet, and the right of journalists to be heard – whether it’s a big news organization or a blogger.  In the 21st century, information is power; the truth cannot be hidden; and the legitimacy of governments will ultimately depend on active and informed citizens.”  So, why do we seem so bent on tempering the flow of information in our own country?  Do you favor Net Neutrality but support the concept of WikiLeaks … or vice versa?  Confusing, isn’t it?

Ignoring the fact that our country is a republic, the former Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law continued, “We look forward to working with all who embrace genuine and inclusive democracy.  What we will oppose is an attempt by any group to restrict the rights of others, and to hold power through coercion – not consent.  Because democracy depends not only on elections, but also strong and accountable institutions, and respect for the rights of minorities.”

No one can argue with what the President said.  He’s absolutely right.  It’s just that in practice, our government has grown to a point that would frighten our Founding Fathers.  Federal departments and agencies have grown almost virally as have the regulations they promulgate and the oversight they assume.  Are you feeling a little “coerced?”  Washington, Jefferson, and Madison probably would be.  “Consent” seems to come into play only within the sense that a certain Frenchman’s attorneys might be inclined to use.

Would you describe our “democracy” as being led by “strong and accountable institutions?”  Consider that to be a rhetorical question.

How about “respect for the rights of minorities?”  Do our politicians “respect” minorities … or use them to fashion sympathetic voting blocks?

Then, the President hit the nail on the head.  “After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets.  The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family.  Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change.  Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job.  Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.”

Quick!  Is he talking about the Middle East or the United States?

The President goes on to say, “Drawing from what we’ve learned around the world, we think it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance.  The goal must be a model in which protectionism gives way to openness; the reigns of commerce pass from the few to the many, and the economy generates jobs for the young.”

This should remind us of the distinction made in the Declaration of Independence; specifically, that among our unalienable rights is the “pursuit of Happiness.”   We are not guaranteed happiness.  We are only guaranteed the right to pursue it.  Therefore, “it’s important to focus on trade, not just aid; and investment, not just assistance.”

Unless we endorse a society that challenges us to pursue our own happiness rather than one that provides for us, “the reigns of commerce” will never “pass from the few to the many.”   Until then, far too many people will lack the motivation to exercise the “Liberty” they have to chase their dreams.  It’s not about redistributing wealth; it’s about inspiring people to create their own wealth.

As Thomas Jefferson once said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have.”  If we move away from the delusion that government is responsible for our “Happiness,” a lot of budget cuts should become “self-evident.”

President Obama ended his speech with “… the United States of America was founded on the belief that people should govern themselves.  Now, we cannot hesitate to stand squarely on the side of those who are reaching for their rights, knowing that their success will bring about a world that is more peaceful, more stable, and more just.”

Now that would be a good starting point for our country!

Throughout the speech, the President’s tone and presentation style were excellent.  In retrospect, many of the points he made were as applicable to the United States as they were to the Middle East.  Perhaps if we acted upon the President’s foreign advice within the context of our own country, he wouldn’t find the need to apologize for our arrogance.  We would be in a position to lead by example.  Until then, the President will continue to tell the world, “Do as I say, not as I do.”  

__________

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

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

Read more

Republicans trail Democrats early in the game

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 18, 2011 – The Democrats and Republicans are playing their version of America’s favorite pastime … political baseball.  You can almost hear the call:

“That was a tough inning for the Elephants.  Just when it looked like they were going to be able to shut the door on the Donkeys, Obama gets his first hit in two-and-a-half years.

“Then, the Elephant’s manager replaced Trump with Gingrich in right field because Trump can’t play defense.  Remember, Trump only started because Huckabee came up lame.  But then, Gingrich didn’t play far enough to the right and made a bad error on a weak fly ball on the very next pitch that allowed Obama to score from first.

“Luckily for the Elephants, Chuck Schumer was up next for the Donkeys.  He dug in with an ‘extreme’ stance that made him an easy strikeout victim to end the inning.

“So, the score remains Donkeys 1 … Elephants 0.

“Mitt Romney is already in the on-deck circle.  So, it looks like he may be coming into the game to replace Gingrich in the bottom half of the inning, followed by Pawlenty and Santorum … all of whom have all been ineffective so far against the left-handed pitching of Obama.  The Elephants could bring Ron Paul in as a pinch-hitter, but he probably couldn’t make it to first base unless Obama walked him.

“Cain might be able, but the manager doesn’t seem to want to put him into the game because … rumor has it … he isn’t a team player.

“And Johnson might be done for the day.  He hasn’t had a good command of his pitches.  It looks like he’ll be coming out of the game because the Elephants have Bachmann and Palin warming up in the bullpen.

“We’ll be back after this word from our sponsor …”

Tell the truth:  That was a pretty accurate assessment of what has been transpiring in the 2012 Presidential election campaign … only it was more entertaining!

President Obama got Osama bin Laden “out” and the mainstream media wanted him enshrined in the Hall of Fame.  He became “even money” to be beatified alongside Pope John Paul II just for that alone.

Donald Trump bowed out of the race for two reasons that suggest that he should never have pretended to be in it.  First, he said that he realized that there may be negative attacks on his family and him.  Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that he just realized this … and has ever cared about it in the past.

Secondly, “The Donald” said, “Running for public office cannot be done half-heartedly” and “ultimately … business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”  He clarified his position in another interview in which he said that NBC made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.  It amounted to a $300 million swing if he continued making tough decisions on The Celebrity Apprentice (like whether to fire Gary Busey or Meat Loaf) rather than serving as Leader of the Free World.  Well, as George Bernard Shaw once said, “We’ve already established what you are.  We’re merely haggling over price.”

Speaking of money … back in January on a radio talk show, I predicted that Mike Huckabee would not run for President because he was making more money than he ever could have dreamed; he had a television show that offered a controlled environment and a favorable audience within which to share his political opinion; and he wasn’t putting himself or his family at risk (either emotionally or physically).

Speaking of even more money … Mitt Romney (who, by the way, has a perfect name for a baseball player) raised $10 million in a single fundraising event in Las Vegas this past Monday.  Las Vegas hasn’t been this excited about anything since it looked like Harry Reid might lose his seat in the Senate.

Romney may be the only person in America who can go to the Strip assured of the fact that he’ll leave with a briefcase full of money … and he’s still just “exploring” whether he’ll run.  Of course, maybe this isn’t so much an endorsement of Romney as it is a repudiation of President Obama, who almost single-handedly destroyed the economy of Las Vegas by warning businesses to “stay away” back in 2009.

Newt Gingrich’s self-inflicted wound was a bit of a surprise.  He probably has more political experience than the rest of the field combined.  He also took a long time to “explore” his candidacy before announcing it on Twitter.  Maybe Twitter should have been an omen because it took him less than 140 hours to alienate his Party.  He seems destined to become today’s version of Richard Nixon … except without the title of President before his name.

As far as Pawlenty, Paul, Cain, Johnson, et al. are concerned, they’d be better off if the Republican nomination was part of the Triple Crown.  At least then, you could “bet the field” in the hope that one of them could win.  Otherwise, the odds aren’t in their favor.

Does this mean that the game is over and that President Obama should, by proclamation, be given another term?  Absolutely not!  That’s why we have elections.

Our economy is in shambles; our foreign policy is a wreck; our education system needs to be revamped; and healthcare reform needs to be … well … reformed!

And what happened to “Change?”  Bipartisan support deteriorated because of a pronounced tendency to blame others (particularly anyone named “Bush”); blame, in turn, destroyed any hope of a new level of accountability; and the promise of transparency was inexplicably explored behind closed doors.  Does anyone really believe that a non-partisan examination of the record won’t reveal glaring deficiencies in the “Hope” and “Change” that’s been delivered?

There was a promise of “Hope” in the last Presidential election.  Perhaps there will be real “Hope” in the 2012 campaign.  It’s hard to see it among the present candidates, but not everyone is already in the race.  Somewhere out there, there is a candidate who, like an innocent child, may tell all these want-to-be Emperors that they aren’t wearing any clothes.  Then, it will be the electorate’s turn to laugh.  And remember the old cliché:  “He who laughs last … laughs best.”  I’m The Common Sense Czar, and I approve of this message.

__________

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

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

Read more

Used helicopter for sale; needs work–call Pakistan

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 6, 2011 – Osama bin Laden was killed in a million-dollar residence located about a mile from Pakistan’s equivalent to West Point and only 35 miles from that nation’s capital.  Of course, other than the fact that the compound was eight times larger than any surrounding building, that it was surrounded by high walls topped with barbed wire, that it lacked any type of communication utilities whatsoever, that food was delivered to the compound each week, and that its inhabitants burned their refuse each week rather than allowing their garbage to be collected … who possibly could have guessed that the infamous Osama bin Laden might have been hiding there?

Pakistan’s government has created a whole new genre of diplomacy called “implausible denial.”  Rather than defend its actions … or lack thereof, Pakistan has taken an offensive tact (and you can take the word “offensive” two ways and be right both times). 

It has castigated the United States for having gone after Osama bin Laden without its permission.  Of course, we’re too “politically correct” to have pushed back hard on the fact that the Pakistani government was either knowingly harboring the international terrorist or that its “intelligence” organization represents the most incompetent such organization on the face of the planet.  Perhaps ISI actually stands for Incredibly Stupid and Inept.  That would explain a lot.

However, Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani dismissed that thought by stating, “Allegations of complicity or incompetence are absurd.”  Then again, Pakistan might just have lower standards.  They probably just need a little more foreign aid to improve their level of performance.

Next, Pakistani officials took custody of three of Osama bin Laden’s wives who had been staying in the compound.  Then, the Pakistani government prevented our intelligence officers from having access to the wives for the purpose of interrogating them.

Essentially, that precluded us from reading the women their Miranda rights and offering them “a $6 million book deal” to get them to talk (at least, that was the type of “coercion” well-known international intelligence expert, Joy Behar, recently recommended on The View).  Then, if they didn’t talk, The Real Housewives of Abbottabad would have been forced to do cameo appearances on Sister Wives until they broke.  Who says we can’t get tough when we need to?  We know how to keep America safe!

Continuing in the spirit of cooperation, a Pakistani TV channel and newspaper published the name of someone they purported to be our undercover CIA Station Chief in Islamabad.  We denied that the individual was our Station Chief so … no harm, no foul!

Numerous Pakistani officials waved their collective fingers at the United States and threatened to bring the full force of their nation’s military against us if we ever ventured into their country again without permission.  Rest assured … that must have soiled the uniforms of our Joint Chiefs of Staff.  After all, some people lose control when they can’t stop laughing hysterically.

And finally, in a complete display of respect and support, the Pakistani government appears to be ready to auction off our Top Secret stealth helicopter; the highly-modified H-60 that was left behind in the raid and only partially destroyed.  It appears that China will be the high bidder.

We really shouldn’t be concerned.  We already owe China a lot of money.  It might have demanded the specs of the helicopter as collateral for any future loans we’ll ask it to make after we raise our debt ceiling.  Besides, China doesn’t pose a military threat to us.  It’s our ally … just like Pakistan!

Maybe we should raise the amount of foreign aid we provide to Pakistan.  That might improve our two countries’ “delicate” relationship (as it’s been described).  It’s been a year and a half since we tripled it under the Obama Administration and the leadership of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, John Kerry.  Let’s just triple it again.

We’ve written checks to Pakistan in excess of $20 billion over the last decade, but look at what we’ve gotten in return.  They’ve only voted against our position in the United Nations 75% of the time over the years.  Just think of how bad it would have been if we hadn’t tried to bribe them!

Seriously though, I think we should respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and withdraw our troops and economic support from its country.  We should do the same with respect to all of those countries that revile our presence and assistance.  Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can find their own solutions.

After all, terrorists have said for years that it is our occupation of Islamic territories that offends them, and if we would withdraw, they would stop killing us.  Let’s take them at their word and follow the teachings in my book, The National Platform of Common Sense, (extended to Pakistan): 

“This Platform calls for a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq … on an undisclosed timetable.  I think we have helped those countries to the degree that we can.  And within the context of ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’ … it’s time to see if the horse is thirsty.  This position will improve our relationships with a few foreign countries (for those who care); it will bring our troops home and take them out of harm’s way; and it will allow us to redirect our time and energy to solving our country’s prob­lems.  The billions of dollars that can be redirected toward appropriate Federal programs and to retiring national debt will come at a time when we have a great need to conserve cash.

“Of course, there are those who will say that withdrawal from these foreign lands will bring the War Against Terror to our own shores.  This Platform is quite sensitive to that.  As a re­sult, it also calls for a policy to be put in place and communi­cated clearly to the rest of the world:  “Don’t Tread On Us!”  More specifically:

“To Whom It May Concern: Any act of aggression against the United States or its citizens will be dealt with swiftly and severely. We will not ask for any other country’s permission … or wait for a consensus of support. We will respond dispro­portionately to any act of terrorism and use every resource available to us to completely eliminate the root cause … as we would with any other plague that might threaten the ‘Life, Lib­erty and pursuit of Happiness’ of which our citizens are guaran­teed.”

Problem solved!  So says The Common Sense Czar.

__________

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

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

Read more

Osama bin Laden ‘sleeps with the fish’

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 2, 2011 – Osama bin Laden is dead; killed by Seal Team Six in a well-executed, covert operation in Pakistan.  Our hearts go out to the survivors of those who lost their lives on 9/11 … for even this action cannot bring back their loved ones.  The reality is that the only thing the world can celebrate is having one less maniac who is more than willing to kill innocent men, women, and children while hiding behind the veil of his personal interpretation of religion.

President Obama deserves credit for a job well done.  While the “break” in the hunt for bin Laden came in August, he took a measured approach and waited until more intelligence was available and Seal Team Six had time to prepare and practice the operation.  As a result, the objective was achieved without the loss of an American life.

The President’s speech was well-crafted from a strategic perspective and delivered with appropriate decorum.  He addressed the relevant issues, acknowledged the appropriate parties, and walked the delicate tightrope of international politics to mitigate any potential backlash against the United States.  In his private actions, President Obama thoughtfully communicated with former President Bush as well as with senior Congressional leaders.

Because an action of this nature also raises the possibility of reprisal, we can only trust that alternative scenarios have been assessed and that preventative measures are already being deployed.  As the President pointed out on multiple occasions in his speech, the “war” isn’t over.

This brings us to today’s talking point:  who on the Right will use this issue to demean President Obama in some way … and who on the Left will use it to demean the Right?  Our country has many problems.  This is an opportunity to determine whether you contribute to them.

For the most part, the media has treated the subject fairly.  With the exception of the networks’ apparent need to bring in “experts” to embellish the facts with nothing more than personal conjecture, coverage has been fairly balanced.  Political officials on both sides of the aisle have been quick to praise the operation and the President’s role in it.

Yet, if you read the comment sections of many public forums, you get an entirely different perspective.  “Fringe” Conservatives deride the fact that the President took any credit for the operation.  They want him to acknowledge that President Bush laid the groundwork for the demise of Osama bin Laden.  The fact is that the critical intelligence didn’t surface until August of 2010; nearly two years after President Bush left office.  So, it is quite a stretch to suggest that President Bush should receive any credit for the operation.  He didn’t have the information; he didn’t participate in the briefings; and he didn’t make the final decision.

Correspondingly, “fringe” Liberals deride President Bush’s “failure” to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and think that President Obama should be acknowledged as a political genius for having achieved that goal.  The reality is that the information didn’t exist until August of 2010 and neither President personally developed the intelligence.  That’s not what Presidents do.

Would President Bush have acted upon the information in a similar manner?  We’ll never know, just as we will never know if President Obama would have been as effective as President Bush was in the latter’s strong response to the tragedy of 9/11.  The proper measure of a President is the leadership they demonstrate at any given moment in time with the information that is available.

For those on the Right who “fear” that this will help President Obama in his reelection campaign, let it go!  Would you rather have Osama bin Laden escape just so your roulette wheel of Presidential candidates could have a better chance at unseating the President?  That’s about as “patriotic” as hoping that our Nation will sustain terrorist attacks in response to the killing of bin Laden just so that you can use it as an argument against President Obama’s reelection.

For those on the Left who have hastily resurrected President Bush’s quote (completely out of context), “I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority,” you may wish to temper your enthusiasm.  He also said, “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.   It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”

You see, Presidential quotes are often contradictory … particularly when their quotes are taken out of context.  For example, President Obama “declared an end (to) the war on terror” on January 21, 2009, when he issued an Executive Order to close Guantanamo.  Yet last evening, he referenced that specific “war” four times in his speech. 

If you need more examples, President Obama previously stated that the United States shall not “continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals” and that we shall “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism.”  Based on the information that is available, the President issued a “kill” order that directed Seal Team Six to kill Osama bin Laden rather than capture him.  Does anyone see the incongruity between words and actions?

Of course, I just can’t wait for the “birthers” to jump on the potential “burial-a-sea” issue.  How long will it be before we hear:  “How can we know that Osama bin Laden was really killed?  They buried him at sea so that no one could ever confirm it was him.  It’s just another conspiracy to get President Obama reelected.”  Please … I beg you … don’t go there.

There are three primary political “movements” afoot in the United States.  The Conservative movement wants to preserve the status quo or at least slow the pace of change to ensure that proper due diligence is done.  The Progressive movement wants to evolve society more rapidly with the hope that such change would be beneficial.  True Conservatives and Progressives both want to improve the country.  They only differ with respect to time and tack.

It is the third movement that is of more concern.  It is a new movement comprised of those who gravitate toward the outer orbits of the two more mainstream movements.  I call it the Destructive Movement.  Its members embrace emotional arguments that singularly support their positions (be they far Left or far Right).   They never let facts get in the way.  The political landscape is simply “black and white” from their perspective … and for some of them … that can be taken literally.

Charlie Sheen might be their candidate of choice because the Destructives only care about “winning.”   They really don’t distinguish between “right” and “wrong because they are blinded by their beliefs.  One polar extreme of the Destructives wanted President Bush to fail because they hated him; the other polar extreme seeks the same fate for President Obama … for the same reason.  Going overboard isn’t a good thing … just ask Osama bin Laden.

As Rodney King once said, “Can’t we all just get along?”  The killing of Osama bin Laden raises legitimate emotions and concerns (e.g., a reminder of 9/11 … and the question of how he possibly could have been “hiding” 35 miles outside of the capital of Pakistan, etc.).  For many, it also raises illegitimate emotions and concerns.

This is an outstanding opportunity to look in a mirror at your motivation.  Are you inclined to use this event to disparage President Obama or Progressives?  Are you inclined to use it to disparage President Bush or Conservatives?  To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, “You might be a Destructive if …”

__________

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

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

Read more

President bids ‘No Trump’ on Birth Certificate

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 27, 2011 – In a power play best suited for “bad TV,” President Obama finally produced the birth certificate that has been “raising the hair” of so many people … Donald Trump included.  Was this a great strategic move, or was it more indicative of the state of decay into which our political system has fallen?

The President said, “This issue has been going on now for two, two and a half years now, and I have to say that over the past two and a half years I have watched with amusement, I have been puzzled by the degree to which this thing kept on going.” 

First of all, this issue has been going on for over three and a half years.  But who’s counting when it can contribute to such a monumental waste of time and money?  Lawsuits have been filed to force the President to produce the record because some other apparently frivolous document known as the Constitution seemed to require it.  Yet, our “transparent” President has found the time, money, and energy to battle the release of his birth certificate … until now.

Secondly, let’s clear up President Obama’s puzzlement.  A birth certificate is a fairly easy document to obtain.  We all have one and have had to produce it at one time or another to secure a driver’s license, passport, etc.  It’s difficult to understand why it would take the Leader of the Free World three and a half years to come up with a copy of his … given the enormous resources he has at his fingertips.

The President, who is known for his penchant for apologizing for our Nation’s arrogance, has been quite dismissive of the need to put an end to this discussion in the past.  In an attempt to exhibit some modicum of common sense, the White House finally took the necessary steps to answer the challenge this week because, as the President said, he has “better stuff to do.”

It took a whole week to close a wound that has been allowed to fester for three and a half years!  Why couldn’t it have been addressed earlier?  Is this the first time that the President has had “better stuff to do”?

Perhaps it was because of the old adage “All press is good press.”  It kept the President’s name “in lights” and allowed supportive pundits to demean those “ignorant birthers” who kept raising the issue.

Perhaps it was being strategically withheld to use during the President’s second-term campaign (much like an “immunity idol” on Survivor).  Then, it could be used to disparage any serious challenge to the President’s reelection.  If that is the case, he almost certainly wasted it on Donald Trump.

Donald Trump’s viability as a candidate falls somewhere in between Sarah Palin’s and Levi Johnston’s (should the latter choose to run instead of publishing a new book that we can only hope comes with crayons).  Like her or not, you at least know where Ms. Palin stands.  Someone ought to make a political weathervane in “The Donald’s” image.  He has changed his political “beliefs” more radically than a Clinton with fresh poll numbers.

Mr. Trump is better suited to serve as Secretary of the Interior.  On several occasions, President Obama has declared that the federal government has 14,000 buildings it needs to liquidate.  Surely, Donald Trump has the experience to get the job done.  Maybe we can even get a few new casinos out of the deal.

Besides, Mr. Trump already has a nice helicopter and plane with his name on them.  He doesn’t need Air Force One or Marine One.  Why go to the trouble of having an election to replace one narcissist with another?  Isn’t it about time we put someone with common sense in the office?

In all honesty, Donald Trump’s focus was partially right; he merely picked the wrong record.  President Obama isn’t vulnerable on the record of his birth … he’s vulnerable on his record as a Senator and President.

When he ran against George W. Bush in the last election (oh, come on, you know that’s who he really ran against), he derided the former President for his budgetary incompetence, for petitioning to raise the debt ceiling above $9 trillion (as compared to the $14.3 trillion where it stands today), and for invading foreign countries.  What a difference a few years make!

But at least President Obama has closed Guantanamo, eliminated lobbyists, worked hard to secure bipartisan support, demonstrated his leadership by accepting responsibility for everything that has occurred during his tenure, and established a whole new level of “transparency” in Washington, D.C. … except for the birth certificate thing!

In fairness, the President is right about moving forward on more relevant issues when he says, “We’re not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts, not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers.”   His Press Secretary, Jay Carney, dutifully concurs.

“Step right up everyone.  See the President’s genuine birth certificate.  Copies are available in our gift shop for only $25 apiece.  Help stimulate the economy.  Buy two and get a free photo of President Obama with glow-in-the-dark eyes.” You’re right, Mr. President, we’re not going to be able to address the substantive issues of our time “if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts, not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by side shows and carnival barkers.”  So, the next time you’re confronted by a meaningless issue that can be settled by a simple phone call, demonstrate the leadership to get the job done.  Leave the sideshows to the television celebrities who need the ratings.  After more than half of your term in office, you’re not The Apprentice anymore.

__________

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

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

Read more

The deja vu of National Debt       

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 21, 2011 – Is anyone out there frustrated with our elected officials’ inability to address the issue of our National Debt in a cogent way?  Perhaps the President and our Congressional leaders haven’t had time to read their copies of The National Platform of Common Sense.  They’ve been too busy pandering to their constituencies.  At the risk of saying, “I told you so,” I offer the following excerpts from a relevant section of my book:

“If we have it, we will spend it.”  That seems to be the mantra of our Legislative Branch of government.  As a corollary, we can add the Democratic dogma:  “If we don’t have it, we will spend it anyway.”  In the past, the power to tax has been the secret weapon of both Parties.  Democrats use it to get votes by promising to only tax the rich to fund programs for everyone else.  Republi­cans use it to get votes by claiming that they will protect the public against pernicious taxation.  Here’s the reality:

“Republican candidates routinely promise that they’re not going to raise taxes … not on you as an individual or on businesses in general (one of their few reliable constituencies) … because taxes negatively impact the economy. “Read my lips … no new taxes.” It’s a clear and intentional misrepresentation. If cutting taxes stimulates the economy, why not eliminate all taxes? Oh, yeah … then we couldn’t pay for government salaries, perks, offices, boondoggle trips, etc.  Scratch that idea!  I guess some taxes are okay.  But the one thing about Republicans is that they can do the math.  If they can’t pay their debts, they’ll raise your taxes regardless of what they’ve promised.  They’ll just do it under the guise of necessity.

“The Democrats are far more forthright on this issue. They’re going to raise your taxes under any circumstances because they’re sure they can create some kind of social program to spend the money … no matter how much is available.  Normally, this would turn off a lot of people, but the Democrats always promise to only tax the rich.  Robin Hood would be so proud!  You see, the rich are really just like the Sheriff of Nottingham who, as we all know, wrongfully took money from the poor by abusing his power … kind of like Congress does.

“And when the Democrats promise to only tax the rich … well, that’s “Change We Can Believe In.”  For example:  when President Obama raised the cigarette tax 62 cents per pack just about a month after taking office, I was all for it.  You see, I don’t smoke … and even if I did … I’m not rich!  I’m feeling to­tally Democratic about this one.  Apparently, only the rich smoke.  Either that … or the President was just “blowing smoke” when he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250 thousand a year.  But who could ac­cuse him of that when he sets an appropriate example for the rest of us by smoking and earning more than $250 thousand a year? That’s stepping up to the plate!

“Correspondingly, when President Obama was running against President Bush (let’s face it, he might as well have been since that was the entire basis of his campaign), he excoriated the former President for presiding over a $2.5 trillion expansion of our national debt (which, by the way, President Obama voted for when he was in the Senate).  Then, as soon as he took office, he es­sentially doubled that level of expansion.  With this level of spending, Presi­dent Obama will be hard-pressed to keep his campaign promise to only increase taxes on the richest 5 percent of our population while reducing taxes for everyone else … unless there is an expansion of the money supply.  Our inability as voters to recognize the mathematical certainty of this demonstrates why so few contestants ever win on the game show Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?  As a result, you can expect the government to increase the money supply to close the gap.

“Now, since our currency isn’t really backed by anything (we went off the gold standard back in 1975), expanding the cash supply really doesn’t hurt us in any way … unless you consider the impact of inflation.  You see, if the government prints a lot of money to pay for all of the new social programs and agencies that it’s putting in place, the law of supply and demand suggests that, as the monetary supply grows, the dollar will be devalued.  So, something that costs a dollar today will cost more than a dollar tomorrow if everything adjusts to stay the same (i.e., to maintain the dynamic equilibrium of the economy).  Luckily, this will only impact the richest 5 percent of our population since President Obama promised that only they would suffer a tax increase.

“Now, why do I say that?  Well, taxes are just a method of paying for government programs.  If the money supply has to be manipulated to pay for government programs, isn’t the resultant inflation, in effect, a tax?  I can’t wait to see how President Obama makes sure that only the food, drink, housing, clothing, etc. of the rich get adjusted for inflation.  Otherwise, he will have broken his promise to 95 percent of Americans who thought they were getting the deal of the century!  I can see it now:  I’ll be going through a checkout line, and the clerk will ask me to produce some sort of National Identification card that will let him or her know that I’m not one of the top 5 percent.  Bingo!  I’ll either get a discount, or I’ll get to avoid paying a premium since we’ve been promised that all these new programs will only impact the pocketbooks of the rich.  Either way, it’s good to know that most of us will be insulated against the effect of runaway inflation.”

(The National Platform of Common Sense continues …)

“The best way to destroy the “Field of Dreams” mentality that is so preva­lent in Washington, D.C. is to restrict Congress’ cash flow … as was intended by the Framers when they spelled out the limitations relative to the Legislative Branch’s “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Ex­cises” in Article I, Section 8. So, this Platform requires Congress to follow the Constitution as it was written.

(At this point, The National Platform of Common Sense draws upon a myriad of solutions that are discussed in detail in its previous sections and then continues …)

“This Platform also calls for the introduction of an indexed budget for Congress; whether it be indexed to the Gross Do­mestic Product (GDP), the number of citizens in the United States, or some other blended formula that relates to the size of our economy and our population base.  As our country ex­pands or contracts in both terms of its economy and popula­tion, so should the government’s budget in proportion thereto.  Other than in times of an unexpected national emergency (e.g., a war, legitimate pandemic, terrorist attack, etc.), there would be no other way to infuse the government with money (other than by utilizing past budgetary surpluses); no additional taxa­tion, no printing of money … nothing!  The country’s overdraft protection could begin with a proportionate reduction in the wages of the Federal government.  Since they’re in control of their spending on our dime, they should feel the pinch first.  This marks the end of La Dolce Vita.”

“Let’s determine what would be a reasonable indexed operating budget for the government and work backward from there to calculate the correct percentage to apply to everyone … equally.  If you don’t have any income of any kind, you don’t pay any taxes.  Otherwise, we’ll all have the same skin in the game.

“Let’s simplify the process while we’re at it.  First, let’s eliminate all of the deductions (both business and personal).  That will streamline the calculation.  And don’t worry about what will happen when you lose the deductions that you’ve grown to view as an entitlement.  In all actuality, they’re merely tools by which politicians manipulate us.  Remem­ber:  we’re working backward when we do the math, so the infusion of tax dollars from the elimination of deductions will help reach the budgetary objective sooner and, in turn, will reduce the overall percentage that you’ll be charged.
“The elimination of deductions should help in a variety of ways. Individual and business decisions will become more legitimately based.  Charity may even return to the heart rather than emanate from the tax return.  Millions of trees will be saved.  How, you ask?  Well, if Congress doesn’t spend a lot of time adding thousands of pages to each bill it drafts to account for the special interests it panders to through tax deductions and credits, millions of trees will be saved.  This could be the environmental solution of our lifetime.  Mem­bers of the Green Party … Unite!
“Similarly, if Congress is limited to a single way of generat­ing tax revenues, just think of how much time and money will be saved and how that time and money can be redi­rected to important issues … rather than on the negotiation of backroom deals and the distribution of pork.  IRS staffing can be reduced (and) the “business of the People” can be properly addressed …”

“Businesses will pay upon the distribution of both passive and active income.  They will reserve the appropriate percentage on any distributed income and pay that sum to the government according to a uniform schedule.  As a result, individuals will no longer have to file any kind of income tax form.  How terrific will that be?  (Sorry, H&R Block!)  To mitigate the chance of misconduct, the penalties for im­proper reporting will be swift and significant (including fines and imprisonment).
“…The beauty is that it’s clean, simple to administer, and treats everyone fairly.  Yes, there is a “price of admission” to be a citizen of the United States; no one gets a “free ride.”  As a collateral benefit, your vote can no longer be bought by political promises.  Wel­come back to the Republic!”

I’m the Common Sense Czar, and I approve of this message… and please don’t forget, “I told you so!”

__________

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

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

Read more

To our politicians: “We are deeply in your debt”

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 14, 2011 – In something reminiscent of the start of the Indianapolis 500 and with a presidential election year on the horizon, the budgetary debate starts with: “Ladies and gentlemen, start your name-calling.”   Why can’t the Democrats and Republicans just focus on the job at hand and put Party politics aside … just this once?

Assuming you weren’t taking an afternoon nap, you might have heard the President’s second speech about our Nation’s 2012 budget.  His first one in February was a real “yawner,” but with two more months to prepare, he delivered a scintillating reprise yesterday … just ask Vice President Biden.

The President’s speech also was a response to the Republican budget proposal:  The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise.  If titles make a difference, the Republicans have a winner.  The President’s budget is named Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the United States Government.  Alas, there’s probably more to a budget than just its name.

In support of their budget, the Republicans position the President and his Party as a bunch of “tax and spend” Liberals who will bring about the economic end to life as we know it.  Of course, anyone who paid attention during the last Bush Administration knows that the Republicans can give the Democrats some competition when it comes to spending.  A war here … a war there … and pretty soon, we’re talking “big” money!

The Republicans apparently hope that they can engineer their own version of social change (i.e., cutting the programs that are not favored by their donor base) while diverting our attention to the sinister risk of the Liberals’ Robin Hood strategy (i.e., taking from the rich and giving to the poor … and ostensibly destroying jobs and small businesses in the process).  The Republican plan even projects a balanced budget by 2040.  That’s only 29 years from now!

Of course, the President’s plan isn’t nearly that assertive.  It doesn’t pretend to reach a breakeven point.  In fact, it adds an additional $9.5 trillion to our National Debt by the end of its tenth year.  Hmmm, where have we heard about a $9 trillion debt before?  You may recall someone saying:

“The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.”

Was it Speaker Boehner?  No.  Perhaps it was Majority Leader McConnell or renegade Representative Ron Paul. No, again!  Well, which right-wing extremist was it? 

Actually, it was then-freshman Senator Barack Obama (March 20, 2006) who was imploring Congress not to increase the debt ceiling to $9 trillion.  What a difference a few years make.

Press Secretary Carney (perhaps the most aptly named Press Secretary in our Nation’s history) adds to the “carnival” flavor of the whole debate by explaining that President Obama “thinks it (his statement) was a mistake” and that the President now realizes that “raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration’s policies, you can play around with.”  Seriously though, what difference does it make?  He got elected saying it and a lot of people have bought the theory that it was all Bush’s fault anyway.  Forget the fact that a President doesn’t have the legislative authority to do anything.  The Constitution is apparently overrated.

During the President’s speech, he dutifully invoked Lincoln and said the budget debate “will affect (our) lives in ways that are potentially profound.”  Then, he gave his version of American history as it pertains to what our country owes us.  Had President Kennedy been alive to hear it, he may have been disappointed.

President Obama began to inspire the audience by saying. “We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge (the deficit) before, and we can do it again.”  Then, he ignored the word “together” and launched into an assault on the Republican Party.  Someone should tell him he needs their votes.

We learned that the Republicans are apparently against clean energy, education, transportation, sick people, the elderly, poor children, and middle-class families.  This is about as fair an assessment as the one proffered by some Conservatives who suggest that all Democrats favor a socialistic form of government and are against jobs and the American Dream.  Where’s the bipartisan spirit and change we were promised?  This just sounds like politics as usual.

The Republican plan targeted a feeble $4 trillion dollar reduction of the deficit over 10 years.  The President’s response was to promise a much more aggressive $4 trillion reduction of the deficit over 12 years.  Huh?

Do these people have any common sense … or math skills?  The Republican plan amounts to a $400 billion reduction per year, while the President’s plan calls for a $333 billion reduction.  Now, it’s becoming clearer why the Republican plan doesn’t project a balanced budget until 2040 and the President’s plan doesn’t project one at all.

Our National Debt is already approaching $14.3 trillion and is growing about $4 billion per day.  So, let’s do some simple math.  If we multiply $4 billion a day time 365 days in a year, we get $1,460 billion per year in new debt, yet even the more aggressive Republican program only averages a reduction of $400 billion per year.  Does that scare you?  It should!

Rather than wasting time delivering meaningless speeches that only serve political purposes, how about revisiting the issue of our National Debt in a meaningful way … or at least getting out of the way of others who can get the job done?

How about using an indexed federal budget that would take the political games out of establishing a budget (as described in The National Platform of Common Sense)?  It would flex with changes in GDP and population and allow for controlled exceptions to successfully address unplanned emergencies.

Do you remember those 14,000 unoccupied government buildings the President said he was going to sell earlier in the year?  Who’s going to buy them?  Perhaps more importantly, who’s going to finance the transactions?  If you guessed “no one,” you’re probably correct.

So how could we put them to use?  Why not offer them rent-free to entrepreneurs and small business owners whom everyone seems to agree are the economic engine behind our recovery?  All the tenants would have to do is pay for their utilities and create jobs along the way.  The program could be limited to a reasonable number of years at which time the companies would emerge from the incubator and stand on their own.  It seems that this approach would return more ongoing revenue to the government in the form of taxes than the one-time capital infusion of a fire sale.

Republicans should love this approach because it’s all about jobs and small businesses.  Democrats should love the program because it will stimulate the economy and create a larger tax base.  Heck, it might even create a few rich people to tax along the way!

Would you like more ideas?  How about accepting the offer that the CEO of IBM made to the President in the Fall of last year?  Sam Palmisano offered President Obama IBM’s software and consulting assistance to identify $900 billion in medical fraud within the federal budget … for free.  Did I mention that it was for free (as opposed to the nearly $1 trillion price tag of Health Care Reform)?

The President apparently didn’t like the deal.  Maybe he was hoping IBM would offer to match the savings.  Benefactors do things like that in community organizing initiatives.  Unfortunately, we’re talking about the real world here.

Who among us would have turned down Mr. Palmisano’s offer?  It takes a very special ego to do something that ridiculous.

In his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Obama said, “In addition to making government more affordable, we’re also making it more effective and customer-friendly.  We’re trying to run the government more like you run your businesses – with better technology and faster services.  In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America.  And we want to start with the twelve different agencies that deal with America’s exports.”  How about starting with the 159 new agencies the Health Care Reform Bill created (assuming the Bill survives the courts)?  Let’s try to rationalize how they can be combined before we allow them to take on a life of their own.

Would it make sense to dismiss the 40 Czars the President has appointed?  That should save a ton of money.

How about collecting the $1 billion in back taxes that are owed by federal employees … and/or terminating them … or would that get rid of too many Cabinet Members? 

Perhaps a few less campaign trips by the President and his entourage would also be in order.

Our country is in dire need of a turnaround.  Having facilitated turnarounds in the private sector for 30 years, I can assure you they require quick and decisive action; something that’s lacking in the approaches of either of our major Parties.  Decisions have to be pragmatic, and personal feelings and friendships (or political ambitions and debts) have to be put aside.  The suggestions in this article are just common sense solutions that we are not hearing from our politicians.  Are there a myriad of others?  Of course, there are, but it’s beyond the scope of a column to explore them.  Who knows?  Maybe The Common Sense Czar will be coming to a city near you.  Maybe … he’ll even drop by Washington, D.C.

__________

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

__________

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

Read more

Shutdown? How about “shut up?”

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 8, 2011 – President Obama tells us that it’s time for “an adult discussion” in order to resolve the differences between the Parties on government spending.  Here’s the challenge:  where is he going to find an “adult” in Washington, D.C.?

Starting with the President:  he wasn’t willing (or able) to marshal a 2010 budget through Congress last year when his Party had overwhelming control of both the House and the Senate.  Why?  Could it have been because there was a risk of damaging the Democratic Party’s chances in the November election?  Oh gosh, that couldn’t have been the reason.  That would have been juvenile … particularly in retrospect.

So, the President should just blame the Republicans (and TEA Party) for his strategic ineptitude and that of his Party.  It was the Republicans’ fault that he and his Party didn’t pass a budget last year. Then, he should just threaten to veto a resolution that would keep the current debate moving forward.  That certainly would reflect “adult” behavior.

Next, let’s look at the “adults” who are running the Conservative side of the equation.  It is embarrassing to see them pretend that they are trying to cut the budget when their “line in the sand” is a veritable “spit in the ocean.”  Whether it’s $100 million, $60 million, or $39 million in cuts, the amount is irrelevant in the face of the President’s $3.55 trillion budget proposal.

The Republican’s 2011 budget recommendation calls for trillions of dollars of cuts over the next 10 years.  That’s a bit more like it.  However, it would make more sense if the Party was at least open to revisiting the issue of possible short-term tax increases.  There are segments of our society that might be able to support a higher level of taxes to accelerate the correction of our out-of-control National Debt (not a tax increase on the ridiculously defined “rich” who earn $250,000 a year, but rather a tax on the “uber-rich” who earn annual incomes in the millions).  Under our Nation’s current economic conditions, it’s not “adult” to preclude the consideration of that alternative.

It is equally ridiculous to pretend that we can remain competitive in a global market as our corporate tax rates head toward attaining the dubious distinction of being the highest in the world.  For those career Democrats who think that we can legislate new industries and job growth, maybe they should drop out of politics for a while and try starting a business.  It might give them an “adult” appreciation for what being “competitive” really means.  It might also help them grasp the impact that senseless government over-regulation has on businesses.

Perhaps most disappointing is the behavior of some of our more senior legislators.  Nancy Pelosi is on record as saying that it is strategically more effective for the Democratic Party to attack Republican recommendations than to fashion counter-recommendations of its own.  Wow, that’s certainly an “adult” approach.

Correspondingly, while the Left seems to be comfortable accusing the Right of being the sole source of incendiary language, Pelosi and her Senate counterpart, Majority Leader Harry Reid, have taken rebel-rousing to a new height … or should we say depth.

Yesterday, Pelosi tweeted that there was a “war against women” being waged by Republicans.  Today, Reid said that the GOP is trying to “throw women under the bus” by denying them healthcare (at least in the form of the government’s funding of Planned Parenthood); thereby forcing a government shutdown.  Majority Leader Reid would have us believe that “the Republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health, and my granddaughters’ health” … and that he’s “appalled” and “offended.”

We should be “appalled” and “offended” as well.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are both millionaires … several times over.  Neither Nancy nor any of Harry’s female relatives are likely to ever see the inside of a Planned Parenthood clinic for their routine healthcare needs.  Still, they would have us believe that Planned Parenthood is somehow a primary care center for women; a sole source for “cancer screenings” and “routine medical checkups.”  Physicians, hospitals, and other clinics apparently no longer exist.  Perhaps Planned Parenthood should just be renamed “Women’s Healthcare Central.”  Grow up!

It appears that there is a Congressional IQ requirement on Capitol Hill … where “IQ” stands for “Idiot Quota.”  No “Affirmative Action” plan will need to be put in place to fill this quota.  We already have an overabundance of candidates.  If this kind of behavior continues, the real “adults” in this country are likely to come to the forefront and honor the memory of Howard Beale.

__________

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

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

Read more

‘The Path to Prosperity’ or The Path to Politics?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 5, 2011 – The President presented his budget proposal for 2012 on Valentine’s Day, while the House Republicans presented their budget proposal today … just missing April Fool’s Day.  The President’s budget was submitted one week later than is required by law (according to The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921), but let’s not quibble over that.  His fellow Democrats still haven’t passed a budget for last year, and the Senate hasn’t given any indication that it is taking our current debt crisis seriously.

The problem with the President’s and the House Republican’s proposed budgets is that they pander to politics rather than address the real world in which the rest of us have to live.

The President’s budget challenges us to believe that we can spend our way out of debt and that the government can do a more effective job of picking “winners” and “losers” from a commerce perspective than the open market.  Raise your hand if you’ve ever successfully lowered your personal debt by spending more money … and please share the name of the fiscally responsible lender who gave you the additional money to do so.  Raise your hand again if you think that government officials know what you want better than you do.  Who needs the open market anyway?

The House Republican’s solution to reduce debt by spending less may make more intuitive sense, but it disregards any consideration of increasing taxes to bring down the debt more quickly.  Think of it this way:  can you reduce your personal debt more rapidly by generating more income through a second job?  Of course, you can!  So, why shouldn’t that option be on the table?

While Michael Moore should never be confused with a Rhodes Scholar, he did recently make a statement that garnered a great deal of attention and is roughly correct:  “Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans … have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.  Let me say that again … Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks … most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 … now have more cash, stock, and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.”

The 400 richest Americans have a net worth of approximately $1.4 trillion (extrapolating from the Forbes 400), which is more than the cumulative net worth of the bottom half of our population.  Admittedly, those with negative net worth pull down the average for the bottom half, but the statistic is still staggering.  Perhaps, some sort of progressive tax might be appropriate to consider.

Let’s take a moment to look more closely at the 400 richest people in America.  The 16 individuals who tied for “last” place all have an estimated net worth of $1 billion.  Since we’ve been told that “rich” people make $250,000 a year, let’s do the math.  If you made $250,000 a year, didn’t pay any taxes, and never spent a dime, it would only take you 4,000 years to amass a net worth of $1 billion.  Another way to look at it:  these people have twenty times the net worth of Michael Moore, which is estimated to be $50 million!  Why not have them share more of the burden?

If Michael is right about how most of them “benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008,” why not take some of the money back to accelerate the reduction of our National Debt?

Speaking of documentaries and people benefiting from the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street, you might want to check out Inside Job, which provides a good overview of how the Bush Administration contributed to the economic collapse … and how the Obama Administration has provided senior government positions for many of the perpetrators.

Returning to those 400 really rich people, it’s interesting to note what a “mixed bag” you have.  At the top, Bill and Melinda Gates, along with the great support of their friend, Warren Buffet, have created the Gates Foundation.  They have contributed and raised approximately $24.5 billion in grant money ($36.7 billion in endowed assets) for this worthy charity.  Their generosity has almost undoubtedly had more of a beneficial impact on society than any amount of taxes we reasonably could have exacted upon them.

Moving on to #3:  Larry Ellison probably bought a bigger boat.  After all, yachts really should be sized according to ego.

Then, just a little further down the line, we have the Koch Brothers.  They went from #9 in 2009 to #5 in 2010; increasing their respective fortunes from $16 billion to $21.5 billion in only one year.  That’s about a 34% increase from their diversified industry holdings.  How they accomplished that while funneling so much money to Republican and Tea Party candidates to skew the political balance of power and destroy the unions (at least according to Michael Moore) is anybody’s guess!

Luckily, we have George Soros to balance out the political spectrum.  Poor, old George climbed from #28 to #14 on the list while almost doubling his fortune … going from $7.2 billion to $14.2 billion in only one year.  The Koch Brothers could learn a few things about capitalism from George!

The funny thing about these latter titans of wealth is that the Koch brothers are the darlings of the Right while George Soros is the champion of the Left.  Think about it.  The Koch Brothers run a wide variety of manufacturing companies that provide hundreds of products and thousands of jobs for “Main Street” Americans throughout the United States.  Meanwhile, George Soros runs a Wall Street hedge fund that makes obscene money for “qualified investors” (i.e., the “uber-rich” the Left professes to hate).  Just as an aside, he also is credited with making $1 billion in personal income in a single day by orchestrating the collapse of the British pound on September 6, 1992.  According to stereotypes, you’d think the Koch Brothers would be revered by the Left and that Soros would be the poster child of the Right.

Maybe the politicians are “on” to something.  Maybe things are just the exact opposite of what makes sense.  If that’s true, let’s spend our way out of debt and eliminate taxes for everyone.  It doesn’t matter that those two extremes go against every instinct … the world just isn’t what it used to be.

__________

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

__________

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

Read more