Politics – Page 15 – T.J. O'Hara

Who’s running the show: Barack H. Bush?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., March 23, 2011 – We are witnessing a political metamorphosis: Barack H. Obama is merging with the psyche of George W. Bush to become a hybrid of liberal conservatism. Or is it conservative liberalism? We now have a Nobel Peace Prize winner invading Libya without Congressional consent and supporting offshore drilling in Brazil while banning it in the United States. The whole thing is very confusing.

Why can’t the President just consistently choose between alternatives? It’s like picking a race. Just pick the one you think will win. It can’t be any harder than predicting the NCAA brackets.

In 2002, Mr. Obama had clarity: “dumb war(s)” were wrong, and “brutal … ruthless” dictators were “bad guy(s).” However, he stated that we should just ignore them if they “pose(d) no imminent and direct threat to the United States” and they could be “contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, (they fall) away into the dustbin of history.” Sounds like a plan … particularly when our country is already supporting troops in a variety of other countries and we’re running out of money.

In December of 2007, then-candidate Obama said, “The President does not have the power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” Of course, maybe things have changed. In the old days, a President didn’t have the power to declare a law unconstitutional and order the Department of Justice not to enforce it … but, as we recently learned, that rule no longer applies.

Now, President Obama has chosen to support military action in Libya without first conferring with Congress. President Bush was supposed to have cornered the market on trampling constitutional rights. Now, he apparently has some competition.

The two Presidents appear to have other traits in common. President Bush was criticized for taking too many vacations. President Obama has taken vacationing to a whole new level. No one before him has had the audacity to launch a military attack while enjoying a luxurious trip in a foreign country.

Of course, President Obama was in Brazil to conduct business as well. After he threw $2 billion at Brazil’s off-shore drilling efforts last summer, the Brazilian government owed the President a few rounds of golf and some really nice dinners. Meanwhile, offshore drilling is still banned in the United States.

Joseph Mason, author of The Economic Cost of a Moratorium on Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration to the Gulf Region, testified that the U.S. ban has cost 19,000 jobs and about $1.1 billion in lost wages. Perhaps, the President could have invested the original $2 billion in offshore drilling at home … but then, where would he have vacationed?

Then there’s the incident that’s been somewhat quashed by the mainstream media pertaining to photos that have emerged of American soldiers allegedly posing over the dead bodies of Afghan citizens. Remember Abu Ghraib? That was President Bush’s fault. There was general agreement that the related prison photos incited terrorists to rise up against the United States. Just to be clear: the current pictures are far worse. Hopefully, the terrorists will cut us some slack for having closed Guantanamo. Oops!

So, how does one choose whom to support? Do zealots on the Right switch over to President Obama’s camp because he’s invading countries, deposing dictators, and at least drilling offshore for oil somewhere? Do stalwarts on the Left continue to support the President because he’s a registered Democrat, has a partial claim to minority status, and isn’t afraid to expand government and run up massive debt?

Then again, the Bush Administration was pretty good at expanding government and running up debt when “W” was in office. The distinctions have become so blurred.

Maybe President Obama is preparing to switch parties. Perhaps the November “shellacking” pushed him in that direction. Could that be the “change” he was talking about?

If he did switch parties, I would provide us with yet one more comparison to President Reagan (who formally changed parties in 1962). Besides, by switching parties, President Obama would be demonstrating true bipartisanship … and possibly bipolarity as well! It might position him to win a landslide victory in 2012. The pillagers of the planet and hawks on the Right might find him to be more to their liking, and the Liberals on the Left might be too afraid of appearing “politically incorrect” to vote against him. Now, it all makes sense. The man is a shoo-in for another four years.

__________

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.

Movie mogul Michael Moore makes money off the Middle

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., March 16, 2011 – First in Wisconsin…now in Michigan, Michael Moore has been encouraging middle-class Americans to rise up against the evil rich and their minion Governors. As he said on March 5th, “America is not broke. Not by a long shot. The country is awash in wealth and cash. It’s just that it’s not in your hands. It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich … The only thing that’s broke is the moral compass of the rulers. And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on.” Makes for a good movie … don’t you think?

Speaking of which, it will be interesting to see if “uber-rich” (at least by most people’s humble standards) Michael Moore will somehow find a way to profit from the protests. His cameras have been running at both rallies, he’s been capturing interviews, and he’s been hyping the events on Twitter while directing traffic to his website to watch the live feed. Hmmm … it almost sounds like a trailer for one of his one-dimensional documentaries.

The term one dimensional seems to fit because Michael is refreshingly honest about his bias. He doesn’t pretend that his documentaries are objective. He admits that they reflect his strong belief that corporate America is out to destroy middle-class working families. What’s ironic is how he delivers the message to the masses.

Moore has been twittering away in recent days about the solidarity of the people and the dramatic message they are sending to the morally bankrupt government officials who serve as mere puppets of the “uber-rich.” He tweeted, “Every CEO, every teacher-hater, every rich f*** on the Forbes 400 will b hoping against hope that no one shows up in Madison…”

When you’re trying to rally the troops, it’s best to use absolute stereotypes like that. It doesn’t matter whether the stereotypes are fair … or even remotely true … as long as the desired effect is achieved (i.e., elevating passion to the degree that reason no longer matters). It works as well in real life as it does in the movies. So, just for clarity: According to Moore’s rash generalization, George Soros and the Koch Brothers apparently have a lot in common.

Michael also espouses that it’s the people of Wisconsin who were sending a message in last week’s protest. Interestingly enough, Michael’s tweets include:

“From Flint & Cleveland, fr Chicago & St. Louis, fr the Twin Cities & beyond, I’m getting tweets texts & emails fr ppl On the Road 2 Madison!”
“Getting msgs fr ppl in Cincy, DesMoines, Indy, Detroit, IowaCity, TraverseCity, Springfield, Toledo: “We’re on the road to Madison!”

Did you notice that the people were coming from other States? So, you’ve got a big, boisterous crowd that purportedly represents the will of the people of Wisconsin … made up of a lot of people who aren’t from Wisconsin.

Then, the “Wisconsin” attendees were encouraged to “march” to Lansing for this week’s protest. Someone should check with the NLRB. There may be an opportunity to organize a Professional Protestors’ Union.

At one point, The Common Sense Czar tweeted a suggestion to Michael: organize a “march on Washington, D.C. where the Prez doesn’t need ‘comfortable shoes’ because Fed. Employees are banned from organizing” (ever since the Carter Administration). Strangely enough, Michael didn’t tweet back.

He did tweet: “Susan Sarandon speaking now. Rally has begun early! If you’re near the capitol, try to make you’re way there now!” It’s always great to hear millionaire celebrities encouraging action on the part of the middle class with whom they would otherwise not associate. It’s also fascinating that those in attendance never seem to be troubled by the paradox.

Michael Moore has every right to promote the events and fan the flames of democracy to support his personal beliefs. He also has the right to promote the events and fan the flames of democracy to support his career. You see, Michael Moore makes a ton of money making documentary movies.

He films real people and real events and edits the content to support his personal point of view. He doesn’t need to pay the union scale to anyone. His “actors” are free and don’t demand any residuals. Michael gets to keep all of the money.

No special effects are required … just a cooperative crowd, a few interviews, and a director’s cut that eliminates any opposing opinion. This is freedom of controlled speech at its finest!

Now, in fairness to Mr. Moore, no one knows if he will attempt to profit once again off of the backs of the middle class. If he does make a film, millions will flock to see it. Those who attended the events will go to the movie to see if they’re in it … and they’ll take their friends and family members. Those who believe that Moore is the bastion of the middle class will go to the movie to pay homage to their leader. Others might attend … just to see a movie.

In any event, it will be interesting to see if Michael Moore adds to his personal fortune by making a non-union film about the exploitation of union workers by millionaires … like him. As honest as he is, he may have been telling us of his plan since the beginning. Perhaps Roger & Me really alluded to the fact that there’s not much difference between the two. Popcorn anyone?

__________

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

King’s hearings: Witch hunt or radical truth?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., March 11, 2011 – Controversy swirls around Rep. King’s hearings about “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response” … and some clarification is in order.

First of all, President Obama was very concerned when a staff member mentioned “the King hearings on radical Muslims in America.” The President firmly stated that he had not called for such hearings nor would he. Then, he realized the “King” to which his staff member was referring was not the President; it was Rep. Peter King, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. Problem solved!

Let’s also dismiss the idea that these hearings are a “witch hunt.” If they were, Christine O’Donnell and Charlie Sheen almost certainly would be involved.

In all seriousness, the hearings are walking a tightrope. Shouts of McCarthyism, internment camps, etc. emanate from the Left. These are legitimate concerns that need to be addressed. The First Amendment and an acknowledgment of our past indiscretions should guide us to better analyses and recommendations this time around.

Conversely, Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC), recently testified before the House Committee: “I actually consider Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, with al-Awlaki as a leader within that organization, probably the most significant risk to the U.S. homeland.” Keep in mind that al-Awlaki’s modus operandi is the recruitment and radicalization of American Muslims.

Even Secretary Napolitano has acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) needs to focus on domestic terrorism and homegrown radicalization … and Janet usually likes to pretend that everything is under control. Then again, maybe she’s just referring to Republicans and Tea Party members as “domestic terrorists” since they seem to strike the most fear in her heart.

The most interesting element of this debate is how it reflects upon the disingenuous intellectual terrorism that currently permeates this country. As The Common Sense Czar, I’m going to exempt most Conservatives and Liberals from this assessment as their differences of opinion can be refereed. I’m talking about the radical fringes of the Right and the Left that refuse to agree on the day of the week.

Let’s review a few things:

The far Right supports Right to Life but is in favor of the Death Penalty; whereas the far Left is against the Death Penalty but is okay with the killing of unborn babies.
The far Right thinks that George Soros is using his money to destroy the Republic but it’s okay for the Koch Brothers to spread some cash around to support the Conservative agenda; whereas the far Left thinks that the Koch Brothers are using their money to destroy the Republic but it’s okay for George Soros to spread some cash around to support the Liberal agenda.
The far Right thinks that unions are corrupt organizations that are sucking the life out of America but that the selfish practices of “big business” are not a threat; whereas the far Left thinks that “big businesses” are corrupt organizations that are sucking the life out of America but that the selfish practices of unions are not a threat.
The far Right thinks that it’s okay to infer that Muslims, Mosques, etc. should be monitored because of the behavior of a few radicals, but that it’s inappropriate to generalize that gun owners are dangerous as a class because of the behavior of a few radicals; whereas, the far Left thinks that it’s okay to infer that gun owners are dangerous as a class because of the behavior of a few radicals, but that it’s inappropriate to generalize that Muslims, Mosques, etc. should be monitored because of the behavior of a few radicals.

Get the picture?

Apparently, inflammatory language is only wrong when it comes from the other side; juvenile behavior is only insulting when it is associated with the other side; protests are only unruly when they are staged by the other side; death threats only count when they are made by the other side.

An early chapter of The National Platform of Common Sense ponders the application of the “Seven Deadly Sins” to today’s political environment. Perhaps it’s time to add an eighth to the list: Incongruity.

Without taking sides on the Wisconsin issue, it was at least entertaining to hear State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-WI) say that “18 Republican Senators stole democracy from the people of the State of Wisconsin” while he has been hiding in Illinois (along with his 13 colleagues) to avoid a democratic vote for the past several weeks. Incongruity? You decide.

Without taking sides in the Homeland Security Committee hearings, there are approximately 10 million Muslims in the United States (out of 310 million people). To suggest that they are all in jeopardy of becoming radicalized is absurd. To suggest that none of them are susceptible to becoming radicalized is equally absurd.

During the hearings this week, Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) made an eloquent and impassioned plea NOT to “assign collective blame to a whole group” because of the actions of a few. He said, “This is the very heart of stereotyping and scapegoating.” He’s absolutely right.

Of course, the same statement would be correct if applied to any of the gross generalizations that are the signatures of the far Right and far Left. All union members are “thugs.” All gun owners (and conservative pundits) are responsible for the shootings in Tucson, Arizona. All illegal immigrants are criminals … or responsible citizens merely in pursuit of the American Dream. These “absolutes” share only one trait in common: they are all absolutely wrong.

So, once the current hearings have faded away, let’s start a new round: “The Extent of Radicalization in American Politics and Reasonable Americans’ Response.” The Common Sense Czar is reminded of two of his father’s adages during The Czar’s formative years: “An empty barrel makes the most noise” … and “A squeaky wheel gets the most grease.” If we start to recognize that those who proffer disingenuous intellectual terrorism are really just “empty barrels” … and we can avoid the temptation to instinctively give them “the most grease” (in the form of media attention) …maybe then we can accept the radical truth that there are very few “truths” among radicals, eliminate the sin of Incongruity, and begin to solve our Nation’s problems.

__________

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

Gaddafi, Sheen, and politicians have this in common

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., March 3, 2011 – In the category of Certifiable Personalities, today’s Final Jeopardy answer is “Muammar al-Gaddafi, Charlie Sheen and many of our politicians have this in common” … and remember to respond in the form of a question. Bet it all! It wouldn’t take a Watson to get this one right. Alex … what is “Clinical Narcissism?” Correct! You’re our new Jeopardy Champion! The judges would have accepted “lunacy” as well. That seems to be the state of “leaders” and celebrities these days.

There’s no truth to the rumor that CBS and Libya are negotiating a trade: Charlie bringing his “genius” to Libya in return for Gaddafi reprising the lead role in Two and a Half Men. Libya likes the deal because Sheen has promised not to bomb its citizens … at least for a little while … and CBS likes the deal because it wants a more stable, less egotistical star.

Unfortunately, we often don’t have as many attractive options when it comes to our politicians. Besides, it’s also getting harder to locate them. They don’t even vote “present” at the State level anymore.

We’re nearing a time when we may need to cast our votes for officials in neighboring States. For example, Wisconsin and Indiana residents might be required to vote for officials in Illinois … where their politicians end up anyway.

If reducing our National Debt is really a big deal, let’s start by eliminating the Supreme Court. The President can just declare what’s constitutional, and the Department of Justice can selectively enforce the law according to the President’s pronouncements.

In that same regard, we could eliminate the Legislature as well. If the President can decide what’s constitutional without the intervention of the Judicial Branch of our government, why not assume that we no longer need the Legislative Branch to vote on the law in the first place? Let’s just eliminate the middleman!

Since the Tenth Amendment is pretty much being ignored, we can stop wasting time and money on State legislatures as well. Again, let’s just let the President determine whether an issue is an “assault” by one party on another and be done with it.

We can declare our borders “safe” as well … regardless of the facts. We actually need illegal immigrants to continue to provide a disproportionate percentage of our prison population. Otherwise, we’ll have to include penitentiaries in the President’s economic recovery strategy of selling underutilized federal buildings. Have you ever tried to sell a prison? It’s not easy!

There’s also the issue of protecting the collective bargaining rights of public sector employees. If the President would just step up and directly address this, it might allow us to do away with Republicans and Tea Partiers. Another huge cost savings! Then again, he might have to explain why he hasn’t done away with the ban on collective bargaining among federal workers that was imposed by the Carter Administration.

If we didn’t need the Department of Justice to be in a position to not enforce federal law, we could do away with it as well. Recently, the Department of Homeland Security prosecuted and won a case in which the judge’s verdict permitted the DHS to shut down three websites that were found guilty of providing child pornography. The DHS quickly shut down the three sites … along with about 84,000 other unrelated sites that were terminated by accident. Hey, the government needed a way to test the Internet “kill switch” the Administration’s been pushing to have approved, and this might have been as good a way as any to do it.

Luckily, we can still waste money on a parole hearing for Sirhan Sirhan. He says he doesn’t remember killing Robert F. Kennedy at the Ambassador Hotel back in 1968, and he’s hoping that we won’t remember either. His attorney believes a second gunman killed Kennedy despite what the videotapes clearly show and the eyewitnesses observed. It may be the same guy that took the shot from the grassy knoll a few years before. Parole is a long shot though, as Sirhan Sirhan will have to express responsibility and remorse for a crime he says he doesn’t remember. Then again, perhaps the ACLU will enter the fray and petition for his release on the grounds that his constitutional rights have been violated as an oppressed illegal alien.

Okay … enough of this! It’s time for The Common Sense Czar to return us to the reality of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Here are his common-sense fixes:

Elected Officials: Show up for work or we’ll replace you … just like we do when private sector employees don’t show up for work.
Department of Justice: Go back to enforcing the law as it stands … on a non-selective basis. Leave it up to the Judicial Branch to strike down laws that are unconstitutional and allow the Legislative Branch to draft new laws subject to judicial review.
President Obama: Go back and read the notes you must have had when you were a Senior lecturer on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. Check out the first three Articles so you’ll have a little more clarity on the separation of powers between the three Branches of government. Then, reread the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Border Integrity: Let Afghanistan sort out its own problems. Bring our troops back, line them up on the border, and tell them to pretend they’re still in Afghanistan.
Public Sector Union Employees: Collectively bargain to your heart’s content … wages, benefits, pensions … who cares? Let federal employees join a union as well if they so choose. However, let’s pass a law that indexes their wages, benefits, pensions, etc. to the average compensation packages of the private sector. Since taxpayers are effectively the public sector’s equivalent of shareholders, no one is getting rich off the fruits of public employees’ labor. The risk of mistreatment just isn’t there. And since these jobs exist to serve the public interest, let’s go with the theory that “all men are created equal” and eliminate the lifetime pensions, etc. that went away in the private sector two or three decades ago.
Department of Homeland Security: Focus on preventing terrorists, drugs, and illegal aliens from entering our borders rather than identifying three child pornography websites. The Department of Justice can handle that issue if it gets back to doing its job.
Sirhan Sirhan: We’re going to take you off the parole list … along with Charlie Manson. It’s just a waste of time and money. If you do get out, you might want to audition for the Two and a Half Men gig. It’s a long shot, but Gaddafi is only a 2:1 favorite.

See how easy it is when you apply common sense? The Man Who Would Be King was just a movie; a film adaptation of Rudyard Kipling’s short story. Let’s stop putting the entire burden on a single individual. If our Founding Fathers wanted a King, they would have called for one and scrapped the whole “Constitution” idea. So, let’s restrict the exercise of “clinical narcissism” to Charlie and Muammar and get back to enjoying a Republic.

__________

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

Gov. Walker’s State of the Union – Wisconsin style

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., February 21, 2011– Madison, Wisconsin has become the battleground for a new type of “State of the Union” address. The term “address” is still applicable because a “dialogue” would require the two sides to exchange ideas … and that doesn’t appear to be happening. As you might expect, there are a lot of misconceptions floating around because it makes for good TV. It’s time for “common sense” to fill the void!

As a college student, Scott Walker once ran for the presidency of the Associated Students of Marquette University. He was accused of violating some campaign guidelines and admitted to some of the transgressions. The Marquette Tribune declared him “unfit for the presidency” … and a promising career in the real world of politics was born.

Governor Walker has held various positions at the State and Local levels in Wisconsin. In his prior offices, he has demonstrated an ability to restore fiscal responsibility and “walked his talk” while doing it. As Milwaukee County Executive, he voluntarily gave back nearly 50% of his salary for several years to demonstrate his commitment.

When the Governor cites Wisconsin’s “$3.8 billion deficit,” he’s citing a trend rather than the current reality. Wisconsin is actually running a $137 million deficit that’s projected to be $3.8 billion in the next two-year budget. So, the Governor is “fanning the flames” a bit. If he used the President’s economic logic, he just as reasonably could have projected a balanced budget … maybe even a surplus!

Governor Walker’s proposal strips away collective bargaining rights except with respect to wages. However, wages are capped by the Consumer Price Index unless otherwise approved by a voter referendum. This is patently unfair! Why should the voters have any say in how taxpayer dollars are spent? This is America!

The Left smells blood at this point and begins to circle the wagons. Union members and Liberal supporters swarm the Capitol building. Republicans are blamed for trying to break the unions on behalf of “big business.” There’s only one problem: the unions in question only represent government employees; there isn’t a “big business” to be found. Never mind … just ignore that.

Interestingly, government employees have lost their collective bargaining rights in Indiana and Missouri in the last few years, and 24 other States have eliminated or at least limited collective bargaining for government employees as well. To add insult to injury, a renowned Conservative President once condemned the thought of collective bargaining for government employees … Franklin D. Roosevelt. Okay, bad example!

Just out of curiosity: Why would FDR be against it (other than not having had the advice and counsel of President Obama)? It seems that some people are just naturally skeptical about a process like the following: union workers pay dues; part of their dues is used to get certain candidates elected; the union then negotiates for higher wages with those same elected officials; and the higher wages result in more union dues. Hmmm … what could go wrong with that scenario?

The Wisconsin legislation also calls for government union workers to pay 5.8% of their salaries toward their pensions and 12.6% of the cost of their health care coverage … as opposed to the zero percent they pay today. In The Left isn’t Right, The Common Sense Czar pays tribute to the savvy marketing of the Democratic Party while in The Right is Wrong he decries the inept marketing instincts of the Republican Party. This is a great example.

President Obama played the “middle-class card” (which is beginning to trump the well-worn “race card”). “It’s very important for us to understand that public employees, they’re our neighbors, they’re our friends … it’s important not to vilify them or to suggest that somehow all these budget problems are due to public employees.” This connects the government union workers to the masses at a more personal level. Great move!

The Republicans, true to form, countered with their doe-in-headlights strategy of “we’re just trying to reduce the deficit.” If they thought like Democrats, they would have isolated the government union workers and “cut them from the herd;” demonizing them in the minds of their middle-class counterparts.

How so? Just point out that “neighbors and friends” of the government union workers earn about $12,0001 less per year in similar jobs and have to pay 7.5% for their pensions and 20% for their health care coverage. The legislation just tries to level the playing field a little. When you think of it that way, it seems like the Governor is just trying to stop the union’s “assault” on poor middle-class citizens in the private sector who are trying to survive today’s economy while working hard and paying their own way.

Then, the Republicans could point out that the legislation explicitly excludes those government union workers who protect and defend the property of those same middle-class citizens: the police and firefighters. This always tugs at the heartstrings of the masses, but those on the Right seem to have lost touch with that nuance years ago.

Republicans have done a fair job of mocking the hypocrisy of the Senate Democrats’ ploy to run and hide in another State. This juvenile, “we’ll hold our breath until we turn blue” strategy is an embarrassment. It appears that Illinois has become Canada to Wisconsin’s Vietnam. Let’s just grant amnesty to the Senate Democrats. Maybe they’ll come back to Wisconsin and do the job they were elected (and paid) to do. Otherwise, they’d better hope that voters no longer distinguish between conscientious objectors and real veterans.

While the United States is actually a Republic, our politicians (who apparently haven’t read, or at least don’t understand the Constitution) like to refer to our country as a democracy. For a moment, let’s accept their premise. In the Middle East, protestors are clamoring for democracy, while in Madison, Wisconsin, we have politicians trying to avoid one. Here’s the dilemma: you can’t have “Majority Rule” only when you have a majority! Step up and do your jobs … or step down. There are plenty of unemployed individuals who would love to take your place.

And while we’re beating that drum, let’s not leave out the teachers. While they may not be in class, they are certainly still teaching our youth. On the positive side, they’re teaching them “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Excellent! Unfortunately, they’re also teaching our children that it’s all right to lie (about being sick), cheat (by filing for sick pay), and steal (by accepting payment). Do you know what this means? It means that there’s a whole new generation of politicians being properly trained by our teachers.

Of course, the venerable “profession” of medicine has also joined in the fray. Well-meaning physicians have displayed the propensity to distort the Hippocratic Oath to one spelled nearly the same. By willfully aiding and abetting the perpetration of fraud (in the form of issuing false “excuses”), they reinforce the public’s growing concern over the sanctity of our health care system. In some perverted way, the President may be able to use this as an example of why healthcare reform is so vital. If driving out fraud is important, let’s start with the doctors.

Perhaps the most interesting element of this drama is the lens through which it allows us to view the present state of politics. Shuffle a few pictures of the union protestors in Wisconsin with protestors at the Tea Party rally of your choice. Then, try to separate the two. It won’t be easy.

One of the popular placards in Wisconsin featured a coiled snake with the slogan “Don’t Tread on Me.” Another said, “Death to Tyrants.” Yet another said “Don’t Retreat … Reload” with cross-hairs over a picture of Governor Wallace. Just when you thought that only the extremists on the Right used that type of rhetoric! Maybe the union workers were just trying to be “fiscally conservative” and bought their signs secondhand.

Then, there’s Nancy Pelosi. Nancy tweeted, “Workers must have a seat at the table to fight for good wages & a safe workplace – I stand in solidarity (with the union).” Wow … that’s so Sixties! Right on, Nancy! Power to the people!

Let’s tie that back to the Tea Party. Picture members of the Tea Party … surrounding our Nation’s Capitol … having bought back all of their signs. Would Nancy “stand in solidarity” with them; would she lobby for their “seat at the table” to fight for a better economy and a safer country; or would she run the maze of tunnels under the Capitol with her fellow Murinae to escape across the Potomac just beyond the reach of the Sergeant at Arms? The Common Sense Czar will place some Wisconsin cheese in the tunnel to guide you, but please don’t stop to eat it.

If it sounds like The Czar is disgusted by the whole charade, it’s because he is. The Tenth Amendment is pretty clear. This is an issue for the Wisconsin State Legislature. While the First Amendment gives our federal officials the right to comment, sometimes discretion is the better part of valor. There are enough things for them to fix in Washington, D.C. without venturing beyond their jurisdiction. Maybe if the Beltway crowd demonstrated a little more success in resolving their budgetary issues, the States might be more inclined to listen to what the feds have to say.

In the interim, The Common Sense Czar will have to continue traveling around the country apologizing for our federal arrogance. Who knows? If he does it enough, maybe he’ll win some sort of Peace Prize … or the Medal of Freedom.

__________

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

Deficit Reduction 102: End Political Prostitution

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., February 14, 2011 – It’s only been a few days since Deficit Reduction 101: For inept Politicians was published, but the President’s 2012 budget not only confirms the need for that course but begs for its companion: Deficit Reduction 102. This could have been avoided had the President just followed Rule #5: “When in doubt, call the Common Sense Czar.” He would have been told to review Rules 1 through 4 before drafting a budget that is tantamount to “political prostitution.”

Rule #1: “Politicians must recognize that the government is a consumer of cash that does not contribute to the Gross Domestic Product in any way.”

Rule #2: “The government can’t spend more than it takes in.”

Rule #4: “Start internally and eliminate all unnecessary expenditures.”

Just to be clear: “Political prostitution” differs substantially from traditional prostitution. Traditional prostitution involves a transaction in which cash is exchanged by a willing buyer for sex with a willing seller. In political prostitution, cash is taken from a potentially unwilling participant and redistributed to someone who is expected to provide services (in the form of support) for the Party Initiating Meaningless Programs (or “PIMP” for short). However, in some ways, “political prostitution” is similar to traditional prostitution because, in both cases, the person providing the cash gets … well, you know! Given the Republican Party’s recent interest in distinguishing forcible rape within the context of government-subsidized abortion, there is a possibility that “political prostitution” will fall under similar semantical scrutiny to better appeal to the Republican base.

The President’s latest budget is an example of “pimping” at its finest. It totally ignores the reality of Rule #1, which is the first step toward recovery; it superficially pays homage to Rule #4, but in a way that is so inconsequential as to be pointless; and it tries to overcome Rule #2 by exaggerating its disregard of Rule #3. At best, the proposed budget represents a “trickle-down” approach to reducing the deficit just when we thought that water torture had been banned.

Cutting the Defense budget and calling for increased taxes on “the rich” panders to the President’s base and underscores the fact that his re-election campaign has been unofficially launched. Of course, the departure of Messrs. Axelrod and Gibbs should have already put us on notice.

In his State of the Union address, the President stated that “we have to confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable“(i.e., Rule #2). Part of his solution is to “call for a freeze on annual domestic spending over the next five years.” Let the record show that our country’s current domestic spending is at an all-time high. To quote Benjamin Franklin, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

The President assures us that “this freeze would cut the deficit by more than $400 billion over the next decade.” History tells us that we should pay particular attention to promises that extend well beyond a politician’s term in office (in this case, four years beyond the longest period the President could possibly serve). Why not tell us what the initiative will save between now and the 2012 election? Okay … that’s obviously just a rhetorical question.

In his recent speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the President said, “We’re trying to run the government more like you run your businesses.” He can’t be serious. Then again, maybe he is. After all, many businesses spend money in expectation of favorable results (“betting on the come” like the government). Then, they try to recover from their ensuing losses by raising prices (just like the government raises taxes to reduce debt). And finally, they fail (… just like the government). Perhaps the Administration should only try to emulate successful businesses.

President Obama is also “convinced that if we out-build and out-innovate and out-educate, as well as out-hustle the rest of the world, the jobs and industries of our time will take root here in the United States.” He left out the phrase “outspend,” but it can be reasonably inferred within the context of the budget he offered.

As an example of “savings (that) will come through less waste and more efficiency,” the President tells us that the government will be “getting rid of 14,000 office buildings.” Here’s a common sense question: Who will buy them? China is beginning to try to divest itself of some of its dollar-based debt, the International Monetary Fund is trying to eliminate the dollar as the world’s reserve currency (more on that issue in one of The Common Sense Czar’s advanced courses), and the mortgage banking industry isn’t likely to loan money on unoccupied buildings no matter how much bailout money they’ve received. The only possible purchaser on the horizon is Donald Trump, who might want to acquire them at bargain-basement prices and flip them to fund his presidential run.

If the government can dump a few thousand buildings, why stop there? If you’ve read The National Platform of Common Sense, you know that our government also owns about 30 percent of the land in the United States. That’s the equivalent of 15 States (if they were all the same size), which would reduce our “inventory” of States to 35 if we were to liquidate them (or 58 by the President’s count). Hey … maybe he’s on to something! The government could just carve out an undesirable area, redefine a few State lines (like it does in gerrymandering Congressional Districts), and sell the resulting parcels to interested parties. There could be an “open border” State for “undocumented workers.” There could be a multicultural State in which that European experiment could fail again. There could be an atheist State, devoid of any crosses, so as not to offend residents. There could even be a terrorist State; possibly the one with the most abandoned federal buildings. Then, the residents could train to their hearts’ content and have a bunch of buildings to blow up in the name of their cause. The possibilities are endless!

Correspondingly, as a certain percentage of our residents migrate to these Non-United States, our country’s operating expenses would go down. Assuming a normal population distribution (so as not to be “politically incorrect”), we’d experience a raw decline in the cost of homeland security, the penal system, welfare, etc. … and we’d have 30 fewer Senators and a lot less House members to support. We might be able to balance the budget after all!

The Czar takes it all back. The President is a genius and his new budget just may work. He can skip Deficit Reduction 102. Perhaps this will also end the speculation that the President never released his college transcripts because of poor grades in math, economics, and finance. With this type of strategic thinking, understanding how many zeroes there are in $1 trillion and how hard it is to earn enough money to cover a $15 trillion debt (via taxation) is almost irrelevant. Besides, if for any reason the President fails to win re-election, he could always get a job as a community organizer in one of the Non-United States.

__________

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

Deficit Reduction 101: for Inept Politicians

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., February 9, 2011 – As we have blown past the $14 trillion mark in National Debt, it has become increasingly obvious that those who hold political offices in Washington, D.C. are living in their own versions of Fantasy Island. You can almost see these intellectual midgets pretending they’re Tattoo … excitedly shouting, “De plane! De Plane!” We need Mr. Roarke to take them aside to tell them what we really need to hear is “De plan! De plan!” On the one hand, we have the Democrats, who haven’t quite figured out why they were drubbed in the November elections. On the other hand, we have the Republicans, who think they had something to do with it. The Democrats continue to believe that we can spend our way out of debt, and the Republicans apparently believe that two-tenths of a percent reduction is a good start. It’s safe to say that Mensa won’t be opening a chapter on Capitol Hill any time soon.

On the Democratic side, we have a mixed bag of solutions. In his recent State of the Union address (which he echoed in his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce), President Obama said he would veto any bill with earmarks, have his Administration develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government, and freeze annual domestic spending at its current level for the next five years. With respect to the first two commitments, perhaps it’s the President’s way of saying that he would support a repeal of the Health Care Reform Bill. After all, it was “larded up” with enough pork to scare away the construction of a mosque, and it created 159 new agencies that will apparently have to be vetted to determine how they can be merged, consolidated, and reorganized in a more efficient manner. As for freezing annual domestic spending at its current level for the next five years, there are two challenges: this would ensure that the government could continue to spend at the highest rate in history; and, it only pertains to “domestic” spending, so we could continue to dig a bigger hole by spending more money abroad … perhaps in hopes of securing another Peace Prize.

Then, there’s Nancy Pelosi’s strategy for achieving economic growth. She recommends using food stamps and unemployment insurance to stimulate the economy. “It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance,” according to Nancy. In theory, she says that every $1.00 of food stamps (or unemployment compensation) generates $1.79 in economic return. If that’s the case, let’s just give $57,166 in food stamps and/or unemployment compensation to the 310 million people in the United States. Putting that $17.7 trillion to work under the Pelosi plan would generate $31.7 trillion, which is enough to cover the $17.7 trillion investment and wipe out the $14 trillion debt. Just do the algebra (or ask an Asian third grader to do it for you). Where would we get the $17.7 trillion to fund food stamps and unemployment compensation? Well, there probably aren’t enough rich people to tax, so the government could just print it. Don’t worry about inflation or the end of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency right now. We’ll address those issues in one of the higher-level courses that follow Deficit Reduction 101.

In the event that these options don’t solve the problem, we can always rely on the Republicans to introduce sound fiscal conservatism into the equation. After all, look at the great job they did from 2002 to 2006 when they had control of the House, the Senate, and even the Presidency. Okay, bad example!

What are the Republicans suggesting? For starters, they have proposed $32 billion in cuts to current 2010 spending levels ($74 billion relative to President Obama’s requested 2011 budget). That’s a little over two-tenths of one percent of the $14 trillion debt … which, by the way, is growing by about $3.8 billion every day. So, the Republican solution would cover the interest expense for almost 8.5 days. If this is the best they can do, there’s only one way we can respond: fire them … and put them on food stamps and unemployment!

Fortunately, John Boehner, Eric Cantor, and Kevin McCarthy had lunch at the White House today with President Obama, Vice President Biden, and new Chief of Staff Bill Daley. After their “kumbaya” moment, they proclaimed they had reached “common ground” with respect to the need to work together to cut spending. Unfortunately, Cantor added, “I guess the particulars and the details will be where the disagreements may lie.’’ Obviously, these men aren’t going to be much help in solving the problem.

So, let’s turn to Deficit Reduction 101.

Rule #1: “Politicians must recognize that the government is a consumer of cash that does not contribute to the Gross Domestic Product in any way.” Admitting this is the first step toward recovery.

Rule #2: “The government can’t spend more than it takes in.” It’s just like having to balance a checkbook if you don’t have access to PAC graft.

Rule #3: “You can’t keep taxing a higher percentage of people’s income to support your spending habits … even if you limit such increases to an inconsequential number of people in a way that secures the votes of a more significant base.” As Margaret Thatcher so eloquently said, “The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”

Rule #4: “Start internally and eliminate all unnecessary expenditures.” When companies are struggling, they cut costs. It’s painful. Get used to it. No more extravagant travel; no more big parties; no more needless perquisites; lunches at the White House will be replaced by burgers at White Castle; and your entourages (otherwise known as staff) must be cut by immediately by 20 percent … 50 percent if you want to pretend you’re in the real world. You’re not rock stars … they actually generate revenue. If the President was serious when he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “We’re trying to run the government more like you run your businesses,” then it’s time to “man up.”

Rule #5: “When in doubt, call The Common Sense Czar.” With 30+ years of turnaround experience, the Czar knows what it takes to “resurrect the dead.” And right now, this country is on life support. Don’t wait until our Nation has been pronounced dead, the toe tag is on, and the body bag is being zipped closed. Leave your egos at the door and call upon people who know what they’re doing and don’t have to worry about being reelected.

The President is on the right track when he calls for running the government more like a business, liquidating unused federal assets, and consolidating federal agencies. However, he is deluding himself if he thinks that freezing the federal budget at its record high will help solve the problem. That’s like buying a teenager a brand new sports car and punishing them for something the next year by only replacing it with a new version of the same model. This isn’t rocket science. Then again, that’s probably a good thing since we’ve already scrapped NASA’s budget. Rather than investing in Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, GM, and Chrysler, maybe our government should invest more in “common sense.” It seems to be in great demand and short supply, so the return could be significant. Coming soon: Deficit Reduction 102!

__________

The National Platform of Common Sense addresses our Nation’s leadership issues and economic recovery in much greater depth. Buy a copy to do your part to stimulate the economy. It’s the least you can do to support your country!

__________

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

President Obama ‘Chambers’ a round for Commerce

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., February 7, 2011 – Today, President Obama walked across Lafayette Park to the United States Chamber of Commerce to “be more neighborly” and deliver a “fruitcake” speech (to paraphrase the President’s opening remarks). As he rounds the corner on his first term and his reelection metamorphosis continues, it’s interesting to explore how the President’s remarks might be “polished” in the name of “transparency.” To do that, we’ll follow the protocol that is used in my books, The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense: The text of the President’s actual address will be italicized and captured in quotation marks and the Czar’s “additions” will be in bolded italics. While the entire text is too long for the purposes of this exercise, its excerpts will be addressed in the order in which they were delivered. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the President of the United States … with a little help from T Common Sense Czar!

“I’m here today because I’m convinced we can and must work together. Whatever differences we may have, I know that all of us share a deep belief in this country, our people, and the principles that have made America’s economy the envy of the world.

“America’s success didn’t happen by accident. It happened because of the freedom that has allowed good ideas to flourish, and capitalism to thrive. It happened because of the conviction that in this country, hard work should be rewarded; that opportunity should be there for anyone willing to reach for it.” That’s why today, in the spirit of the Super Bowl, I’m going to level the playing field. No more entitlements! If you don’t demonstrate a willingness to work hard, the government isn’t going to bail you out … and if you do work hard, we’re going to allow you to keep what you earn. I’m not even going to use the power of my office to award the Lombardi trophy to my beloved Chicago Bears. They lost in the playoffs … so, no trophy for them!

“The globalization of our economy means that businesses can now open up shop, employ workers, and produce their goods wherever there is Internet connection. Tasks that were once done by 1,000 workers can now be done by 100, or even 10. And the truth is, as countries like China and India grow and develop larger middle classes, it’s profitable for global companies to aggressively pursue these markets and, at times, to set up facilities in these countries.” That whole math thing about 10 workers being able to do the work of 1,000 scares me. How do we create jobs as we become more productive? Frankly, that’s one of the reasons I support unions; they encourage mediocrity which, in turn, can reduce productivity. And while Tom Donohue and Richard Trumka may not be Facebook friends, I think this is an area in which the Chamber and big labor can come together.

“We know what it will take for America to win the future. We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build our competitors. We need an economy that’s based not on what we consume and borrow from other nations, but what we make and sell around the world. We need to make America the best place on earth to do business.

“And this is a job for all of us. As a government, we will help lay the foundation for you to grow and innovate. We will upgrade our transportation and communications networks so you can move goods and information more quickly and cheaply. We will invest in education so that you can hire the most skilled, talented workers in the world. And we’ll knock down barriers that make it harder for you to compete, from the tax code to the regulatory system.” This gets back to my Super Bowl analogy. We’re not going to be able to continue to compete on a global basis unless we level the playing field.

As for transportation, we’ll actually try to find some of those “shovel-ready” jobs I mentioned when I was trying to push the Stimulus Bill through. I mean, how hard can it be to find roads with potholes in them? And Japan and other countries have been using high-speed rail for decades. We haven’t done much from that perspective since President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railway Act back in 1862 to establish our nation’s first transcontinental railway. We had cheap Chinese labor back then that made it all possible, which is why I support illegal immigration today! In the alternative, we could return to President Clinton’s philosophy: eliminate welfare for able-bodied individuals and provide them with a vocation (like building roads and railways). I know that Nancy Pelosi favors food stamps, but Bill did balance the budget and create a federal surplus.

As for the Internet, I’m going to leave that initiative in the able hands of Al Gore, who couldn’t be here today because he had already scheduled a massage.

“The third responsibility we have as a nation is to invest in the skills and education of our people. If we expect companies to do business and hire in America, America needs a pool of trained, talented workers that can out-compete anyone in the world. That’s why we’re reforming K-12 education and training 100,000 new math and science teachers.” Now, during my State of the Union address, I was dismissive of Asian academics when I said that “our students don’t just memorize equations,” but the fact of the matter is … they’re kicking our proverbial butts.

“Recently, I visited GE in Schenectady, New York, which has partnered with a local community college. While students train for jobs available at the nearby GE plant, they earn a paycheck and have their tuition covered. As a result, young people can find work. GE can fill high-skilled positions. And the entire region has become more attractive to businesses. It’s win-win for everyone, and something we’re trying to replicate across the country.” It almost reminds me of the ‘Company Town’ approach that was popular back in the early 1900s… right, Richard?

“To make room for these investments in education, innovation, and infrastructure, government also has a responsibility to cut the spending that we just can’t afford. That’s why I’ve promised to veto any bill larded up with earmarks.” Sure, I could have taken that stance when the Health Care Reform Bill was presented to me to sign, but I needed a major legislative accomplishment to put on my resume next to ‘community organizer.’ If I had known that people were paying attention and were going to lash out against my Party in the November elections, I might have handled it differently.

“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.” We’ll even get rid of a few of the 159 new agencies we created in the Health Care Reform Bill and, perhaps most importantly, I’ll be dismissing the 40 Czars I’m paying big bucks to and replacing them all with The Common Sense Czar. When you think about it … he’s the only one we really need in Washington, D.C.

“This brings me to the final responsibility of government: breaking down barriers that stand in the way of your success. As far as exports are concerned, that means seeking new opportunities and opening new markets for your goods. I’ll go anywhere to be a booster for American businesses, American workers, and American products.” As you may have noticed, Michelle and I love to travel, and we don’t know how much longer I’ll have this gig. So, we’d like to go wherever we can as long as the American taxpayer is footing the bill.

“Another barrier government can remove is a burdensome corporate tax code with one of the highest rates in the world. You know how it goes: because of various loopholes and carve-outs that have built up over the years, some industries pay an average rate that is four or five times higher than others. … That’s why I want to lower the corporate rate and eliminate these loopholes to pay for it so that it doesn’t add a dime to our deficit.” I’m really a ‘big business’ kind of guy and I’m always in favor of reducing taxes. Of course, come campaign time, I’ll revert back to the Robin Hood Strategy: preaching that we should tax the rich and give to the middle class. I know that it used to be ‘give to the poor,’ but they don’t contribute to campaign funds and turn out at the polls like the middle class. That’s why we always talk about the middle class these days instead of the poor.

“The last barriers we’re trying to remove are outdated and unnecessary regulations. I’ve ordered a government-wide review, and if there are rules on the books that are needlessly stifling job creation and economic growth, we will fix them. Already we’re dramatically cutting down on the paperwork that saddles businesses with huge administrative costs.” Let’s face it, if we really follow through on this, we may have to repeal the Health Care Reform Bill. It would be easier (and less embarrassing) than creating all those new agencies only to find that none of them are really necessary and that they only add to the administrative costs of doing business.

“Now is the time to invest in America. … I know that many of you have told me that you are waiting for demand to rise before you get off the sidelines and expand, and that with millions of Americans out of work, demand has risen more slowly than any of us would like. But many of your own economists and salespeople are now forecasting a healthy increase in demand. So I want to encourage you to get in the game. And part of the bipartisan tax deal we negotiated, businesses can immediately expense 100 percent of their capital investments.” Okay! Tell the truth: I sound like a Republican, don’t I? You can almost see me moving toward the middle as my reelection campaign nears.

“And if there is a reason you don’t share my confidence, if there is a reason you don’t believe that this is the time to get off the sidelines – to hire and invest – I want to know about it. I want to fix it. That’s why I’ve asked Jeff Immelt of GE to lead a new council of business leaders and outside experts so that we’re getting the best advice on what you’re facing out there.” Jeff, as you may know, laid off tens of thousands of GE employees in the U.S. over the past few years while growing GE’s foreign workforce to 53 percent of its total workforce. Over the past ten years, while the DOW has remained relatively flat, GE’s biggest competitor’s stock has improved by over 50 percent … and GE’s stock has plummeted by more than 50 percent. But let me be clear, Jeff has been a strong advocate of my Presidency.

“Roosevelt reached out to businesses, and business leaders answered the call to serve their country. After years of fighting each other, the result was one of the most productive collaborations between the public and private sectors in American history … 1941 would see the greatest expansion of manufacturing in the nation’s history. And not only did this help us win the war. It led to millions of new jobs and helped produce the great American middle class.” Prior to that, Roosevelt’s New Deal wasn’t working any better than my Stimulus Bill. Now, I’m not saying that all we really need is a good World War to get us right back on track, but it certainly didn’t hurt back then.

“We have faced hard times before. We have faced moments of tumult and change before. We know what to do. We know how to succeed. We are Americans.” Well, at least you are … just kidding! I’m just messing with the ‘birthers.’ And all that talk by my staff about how ‘no President in history has faced the challenges I have faced’ … it’s just political rhetoric. I haven’t had to deal with a full-blown depression or a World War, let alone a Civil War. Plus, I’ve gotten away with blaming my predecessor for almost everything … which would have been an unthinkable thing for a President to do in the past. Truth be told, what I really need now is to get reelected. It’s an ego thing. Everybody who serves in this office has it, and now I need to broaden my base to secure my destiny. So, just think of me as a ‘pro-business’ guy who wants to cut red tape and taxes, and vote for me in 2012!

“Thank you. God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America.”

__________

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

Democrats and Republicans beware: A President for the People

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., February 7, 2012 – Today, more than ever, America needs independent leadership. The “hope” of bipartisan accord we were promised in 2008 has disintegrated into a politically accusatory environment that has earned Congress the lowest “favorability” rating of all time, and the President isn’t far behind. The only thing upon which the Democrats and Republicans seem to agree is that our Nation’s current challenges are the fault of the other Party.

It is time to fix the problems rather than the blame. That is why I am running as an independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States.

Will it be easy? No. Have the Parties spent the past 200+ years trying to build barriers designed to preclude anyone from challenging their power base? Yes. Should you accept that constraint? I am presenting you with the opportunity to decide.

The Constitution empowers you to participate in the determination of who serves in our representative form of Government. You are not restricted to the candidates that the Parties proffer.

There is a place for partisan argument. It resides within the Legislative Branch of our Government under Article I. The bicameral chambers are structured to elicit differing opinions that can be debated civilly (although the latter concept appears to be a lost art).

The idea is that a presentation and discussion of the facts within the House and the Senate will lead to a rational assessment of the alternatives. Unfortunately, the Parties have become so profoundly focused on maintaining and expanding their political power that they have become blind to their responsibility to protect the best interests of the People.

Our Founding Fathers tried to protect against that inevitability by crafting a more autonomous branch of Government under Article II: The Executive Branch. The expectation was that the President would exercise the power of veto to temper any undue partisanship in the event that Party politics began to inappropriately influence the direction of legislation. In turn, the power of veto was designed to be overridden by Congress in the event that it was abused, but to do so would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and the Senate (a hurdle of appropriately significant magnitude).

Regrettably, the Presidency has evolved into more of a champion for a particular Party than a check-and-balance against legislative fiat. It has transformed into a position that serves more to secure the power of the Parties than the “blessings of Liberty” for the People.

After serving over 25 years as a senior executive and consultant in the private sector (predominantly directing turnarounds), I dedicated the past three years to the study of our Nation’s political system. In that time, I wrote and spoke extensively on the subject and authored three books.

Ultimately, I focused on the Party paradigm that has been strangling our country. It became apparent that the solution had to reside outside of the Parties. We needed a leader who would retain the ability to exercise independent judgment.

Think about that. In our current political environment, potential candidates have accepted the belief that they have to represent a Party to wage a successful campaign. The cash and infrastructure requirements are otherwise prohibitive. Then, ask yourself two questions: Who created that paradigm and why?

The answer is obvious. The Parties are the only entities that benefit from constraining choice. They work to “preserve, protect and defend” their base of power rather than the Constitution. The fact that they have to sell “influence” in order to maintain the system they have created is irrelevant. It’s a Machiavellian model at its finest.

The result is devastating.

Since Presidential campaigns are at the extreme end of the cost curve, Party candidates essentially are owned by their Parties. If they are elected, their decisions are significantly prejudiced by their Party’s leadership and platform. As a result, we see over 80 percent of the senior White House appointments and nearly 50 percent of the Ambassadorships going to individuals who bundled $500,000 or more for the President; and we are asked to believe that it’s just a coincidence.

Ultimately, the President is expected to pay what the Party owes. Effectively, the “Leader of the Free World” forfeits his or her Liberty to Lead, and that is untenable.

Presidents too often have become the political marionettes of their Party. For example: they are traditionally used to attract money and attention to feed their Party’s insatiable appetite for power. Presidents draw crowds; crowds translate into donations; donations are used to create marketing campaigns that are designed to shape political beliefs; and political beliefs drive voter behavior. You just have to connect the dots.

Think about a modern-day President’s schedule. He or she is obligated to fly around the country, at taxpayer expense, to fundraise on behalf of his or her Party; to campaign on behalf of other Party candidates (whom the President often doesn’t know); and to campaign for his or her own re-election. This is done at a cost of over $181,000 an hour to operate Air Force One; not to mention the cost of Secret Service protection and the multiple floors of Five-Star hotels that have to be closed to accommodate most of our recent Presidents’ lodging preferences.

It is important to note that none of these activities has anything to do with the business of the People. The question becomes: What would happen if we had a full-time President?

You now have the opportunity to discover the answer.

As an independent candidate, I am not indebted to a Party. That means I can actually focus on serving our Nation rather than a political Party.

I am insulated from having to fund-raise for anyone. I am not required to champion the candidacies of others and, quite frankly, if they can’t stand on their own accord, they do not warrant my support.

Additionally, I will commit not to run for re-election. That does not mean that I would not serve a second term if it was the will of the People. It simply means that I will not waste time raising money and campaigning for a second term.

The reality is that I will be the only candidate, at that moment in time, who has a record upon which to be judged. If my performance merits a second term, I would be honored to serve.

I think that it’s absurd for an incumbent to raise and spend nearly $1 billion to get re-elected. That amount of money would support 22,000 median-income households, 65,000 individuals receiving unemployment, or 87,000 people at the poverty level for an entire year. If that perspective costs me a second term, so be it.

I also have the ability to exercise independent judgment. Compare that to the position of a Party President.

A Party President is under enormous pressure to comply with the Party’s platform (again, to protect the Party’s base). That means that he or she is inclined to define problems, identify root causes, and evaluate alternatives that are in alignment with the Party’s position. It also means that the President effectively only considers half of the solutions. In my opinion, this is tantamount to a breach of fiduciary duty.

The telltale sign of this violation of public trust is when a President begins to blame the opposing Party for virtually everything. Rhetoric that decries the Republicans (or Democrats) in the House and/or Senate, while ignoring the reality that both Parties are represented and charged with the responsibility to reach a consensus.

This tactic is also used to distract attention from the fact that there is culpability on both sides. To reiterate my earlier statement: It’s time to fix the problem rather than the blame.

In my turnaround experience in the private sector, there wasn’t any value in assessing blame. We needed to solve the problem, and that’s where we concentrated our time and energy.

Additionally, no one really cared who offered the best solutions. We only cared that we identified them and executed them as effectively as possible.

You might have noticed that I used the pronoun “we.” It is a particularly important pronoun with respect to leadership. It is also a particularly important pronoun with respect to our country.

The Constitution begins with the words “We the People.” It doesn’t begin with the words “We the Democrats” … “We the Republicans”… “We the Liberals”… or “We the Conservatives.” It doesn’t distinguish between sexes, races, religions, sexual orientations, or any other categories the Parties use to divide rather than unite our country. It begins, “We the People,” and it’s time we elected someone who recognizes that distinction.

We live in a world in which the Presidency is for sale, and in our society, it usually goes to the highest bidder. Our Founding Fathers would be ashamed.

When the deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were concluded, an entry in Benjamin Franklin’s diary states that a certain Mrs. Powel asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a Republic or a Monarchy?” Without hesitation, he answered, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” How prophetic was his answer?

We were given a Republic. Only you can decide if we can keep it.

Let’s work together. It’s time to return America to the People.

__________

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

Curfews in Cairo – Revolution in Egypt

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., February 2, 2011 – In case you haven’t heard, President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt hasn’t been having a good week and neither has his Prime Minister and cabinet … which aren’t around anymore. You see when you are what some claim to be a despotic leader, things like this can happen. Despotic Leadership 101 says the first thing to do is to try to settle down the masses with a show of force. Second: fire everyone in power except yourself; after all, you’re a despotic leader, so you have to remain in power. Third: promise meaningful reform (even if you don’t mean it). And finally: if the crowd is still outside your palace gates with their proverbial pitchforks and torches … and if you’re 82 years old … it may be time to “hang up the tarboosh” and call it a day. This is what President Mubarak is facing.

Across the pond, President Obama is struggling with yet another situation that just never arose during his extensive experience as a community organizer. On the one hand, we’ve been backing the Mubarak regime with money and diplomatic support for many years and claimed him as our ally. On the other, we’re supposed to be the bastion of freedom; something that hasn’t truly existed in Egypt since Emergency Law was declared. Under Emergency Law, Egypt’s Constitution is temporarily suspended and police power is greatly expanded (similar to martial Law). While this might make sense if it was done recently to quell the current turmoil in the streets, it actually began in 1967 and has been in effect ever since (other than during an 18-month period during which Mubarak’s predecessor, Anwar El Sadat, was assassinated).

You’d think that Mubarak could have arrested the “state of emergency” during the 30 years he’s been in office. After all, 30 years is a long time to be in power … unless you compare it to our Congressmen and Senators. In that case, President Mubarak wouldn’t even make it into our All-Time Top 100, and among our current crew, Dingell, Inouye, Conyers, Rangel, Young (Bill), Cochran, Stark, Young (Don), Leahy, Baucus, Grassley, Harkin, Miller and Waxman would all beat Mubarak’s reign by at least six years. If Joe Biden hadn’t become Vice President and many of his other colleagues either died, retired, or been voted out of office this past year, the list would be considerably longer. Corruption can occur among those who hold political office for too long a period of time … present company of Congressmen and Senators excepted of course.

Corruption is rampant in Egypt. Transparency International tracks corruption among 178 different countries and assigns a Corruption Perceptions Index (or “CPI” – not to be confused with the Consumer Price Index) to those countries. In 2010, Egypt ranked 98th out of 178. To put that into perspective, the United States ranked 22nd (four places behind Qatar and two behind Chile) … and you know how corrupt things are in this country!

Then, there’s the whole torture “thing” under Emergency Law. Mubarak’s former Minister of the Interior, Habib al-Adly, apparently got a little zealous with the right to imprison individuals for any period of time (without any real cause) and torture them while they’re in custody. We get upset with a little waterboarding of terrorist suspects who are trying to kill hundreds or thousands of us at a time. Can you imagine how upset the Egyptians must be when they can be subjected to far worse forms of “enhanced interrogation techniques” because they may simply disagree with the government?

So, what should President Obama do? Should he cut off the $1.5 billion in financial aid that we deliver to Egypt every year? It’s not an easy decision. First, it could risk the relationship that our government has in place with Egypt … and we’re not exactly “flush” with allies in the Middle East. Secondly, much of that money is spent on military equipment. Oh sure, Egypt buys a lot of its military equipment from other countries, but it still creates jobs in the United States through what it purchases from us. Rumor has it that some of the protestors have been shot with American-made bullets. Let’s hear it for capitalism!

Perhaps the most difficult part of the decision resides with a $1.1 million investment that Egypt makes directly in U.S. firms each year. According to the Atlantic, Cairo pays lobbyists $1.1 million a year to “provide assistance and advice, as requested, to the Embassy in the task of securing and further enhancing the interests of Egypt in the United States in the political, economic, military and other fields.” If we withdraw financial support from Egypt, that lobbying initiative could go away. Besides, where would we spend the $1.5 billion we give Egypt if we didn’t spend it there? Poverty and illiteracy are both hovering around 15 percent in the United States, but we seem to be comfortable with those numbers.

Of course, we are cheering for the Egyptians on the side of freedom. Nancy Pelosi personally tweeted twice on the subject within the last few days, while John McCain asked, “What’s a ‘tweet?’” The former Speaker tweeted: “I support the democratic aspirations of the Egyptian people & right to peacefully protest,” and earlier, “I’m inspired by people of Egypt seeking real democracy & join Sec. Clinton in support of orderly transition to fair elections.” Minority Leader Pelosi’s alignment with “democratic aspirations” is a given, and her support of “peaceful protests” heralds her belief in the First Amendment “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Nancy’s encouragement of an “orderly transition to fair elections” is a responsible position as well; although, it might be complicated by the protestors’ rejection of Mubarak’s offer to surrender his position in September by not running for reelection.

However, the most poignant element of Pelosi’s tweets was when she typed, “I’m inspired by people of Egypt seeking real democracy …” This may be indicative of a fundamental shift in her political position. After all, it wasn’t too many months ago that she dismissed the Tea Party movement as “AstroTurf” rather than “grassroots” and likened its members to Nazis. Weren’t the Tea Party rallies really about returning the United States to the path of individual freedoms prescribed by the Constitution and its Amendments? The Tea Party protests would appear to be very similar to the protests in Egypt … except without the Molotov cocktails and vandalizing of people’s businesses and homes. Then again, Egyptian residents can’t vote against Nancy, so that may be the real difference.

Moving to the other side of the aisle, some Conservatives have accepted the premise that if the Mubarak regime falls, the dreaded Muslim Brotherhood might take over Egypt and create the second coming of Iran. After all, President Mubarak has been warning the American public about this for years. The only thing he has to gain from scaring us into believing that a radical Islam group might take over Egypt is the ongoing financial and diplomatic support of the United States. He’s a politician. Let’s just take him at his word!

The Muslim Brotherhood apparently wants to return Egypt to a non-secular state governed by Sharia law. The fact that only about one percent of Egypt’s population is aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood doesn’t get in the way of fear-mongering. If there was an open and fair election, Egyptian women alone would prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from ever gaining power. If you’re concerned about the likelihood of there ever being an “open and fair election” in Egypt, we could always send Jimmy Carter over there to audit the process. With any luck, he might stay.

In any event, we should all hope that this situation resolves itself quickly and peacefully. Whether President Mubarak steps down immediately or the protestors accept his offer to leave office in September, it’s disrupting the tourist business as it pertains to the Pyramids and Sphinx. As soon as everyone figures out that there’s money involved, they’ll probably be able to reach an agreement. In the interim, the crisis has encouraged hackers to create some interesting Internet workarounds and kept many a news crew gainfully employed. So, to President Mubarak, the Muslim Brotherhood, and all the revolutionaries in the streets of Cairo’s Tahrir Square: thanks for the only true reality TV we see in the United States.

__________

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

Category: Politics

Who’s running the show: Barack H. Bush?

Movie mogul Michael Moore makes money off the Middle

King’s hearings: Witch hunt or radical truth?

Gaddafi, Sheen, and politicians have this in common

Gov. Walker’s State of the Union – Wisconsin style

Deficit Reduction 102: End Political Prostitution

Deficit Reduction 101: for Inept Politicians

President Obama ‘Chambers’ a round for Commerce

Democrats and Republicans beware: A President for the People

Curfews in Cairo – Revolution in Egypt

Services

HEADQUARTERS

email CONTACT