Category: Politics

A Fiscal Cliff? More Like A Political One

SAN DIEGO, Ca., September 6, 2017 – As voters, we’ll be asked to ignore the dereliction of duty demonstrated by our elected leaders; threatened with horrible outcomes if a federal budget isn’t passed and the debt ceiling isn’t increased; then, suffer through the traditional blame game, where the two major Parties take turns distorting the truth and casting aspersions at each other in an attempt to gain a political advantage in next year’s midterm elections.

As I’ve said in the past, perhaps it’s time that we replaced the fiscal cliff with a political one.

Here are the facts of what Washington has on its plate:

  • The federal fiscal year begins on October 1.
  • The President is supposed to submit a detailed budget request by the first Monday in February (although new administrations are usually given a grace period).
  • Congress is supposed to hold hearings on the administration’s budget before crafting its own “budget resolution,” which is a “concurrent” resolution rather than an ordinary bill. The budget resolution is generally less detailed than the President’s budget, only requiring a majority vote. It cannot be filibustered, nor vetoed by the President because it does not require the President’s signature. It is also supposed to be passed by April 15.
  • Once the budget resolution is adopted, Congress is supposed to consider annual appropriation bills to fund discretionary programs in the next fiscal year and to enact legislative changes to mandatory spending or revenue levels (if directed to do so by the budget resolution).

There is also a budget reconciliation process. However, it has been largely ignored or abused for several decades. This year will be no exception.

In addition, government agencies are in the process of spending every penny possible before the October 1 deadline.

About one-third of our nation’s annual budget is spent in the fourth fiscal quarter because it’s a “use it or lose it” environment.

As a result, not only do our elected officials budget poorly (if at all) at the federal level, the system encourages a spendthrift approach to the utilization of funds.

Our national debt currently exceeds $20 trillion. That is an optimistic figure because our total unfunded liabilities exceed $107 trillion (or about 80 percent of the cumulative assets of our entire country).

In any event, brace yourself for acrimonious rhetoric, ongoing threats, and a complete evasion of responsibility by the Parties that control our federal government.

For those who would like to see how history is simply repeating itself, here are links to three articles I wrote on July 12th and 20th of 2011, and on December 20, 2012: Debt ceiling negotiations: Pelosi, Boehner, Obama & Reid Liar’s Poker, The debt ceiling war: Cut, Cap, Balance vs. Cut, Tax, Spend, and Replace the fiscal cliff with a political one.

We have a new President, and the position of the Parties has changed slightly as have some of the names of our congressional leaders.

Of course, they will introduce different issues into the current dilemma in an attempt to gain political leverage and distract us from their failings. No standards of decency will be left unturned because the exercise has become more about the 2018 election cycle than about the 2017 fiscal budget.

Perhaps it’s once again time to forget the fiscal cliff about which we’re conditioned to worry and, instead, shift the burden to our elected officials by pushing them toward a political cliff in 2018.

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

Read more

Is it Smart to Have a Department of Education?

SAN DIEGO, Ca., February 8, 2017 – Following her historic confirmation as Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos may find herself to be unemployed. A bill (H.R. 899) has already been proffered to eliminate the Department of Education. The bill, introduced by Representative Thomas Massie (R-Kentucky) and co-sponsored by seven other Republican members of the House, is terse by any standard invoking just one sentence: “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.” Satirically speaking, given the level of opposition to Secretary DeVos’ appointment, one might expect there to be considerable bipartisan support for abolishing the Department.

The Department of Education (ED) is relatively new. It was created by President Carter on October 17, 1979, and did not officially begin to operate until May 16, 1980. Objectively, the United States had somehow found a way to educate its masses for over 190 years without the existence of a Cabinet-level Department.[1]

ED came to fruition as the result of President Carter’s decentralization of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, which had been established by President Eisenhower in 1953.[2] It became and remains the smallest department within our Federal Government and has been mired in controversy since its inception.

ED almost immediately came under attack. President Reagan originally campaigned upon a promise to eliminate it as a Cabinet post, and he tried to dismantle it (via budget) in 1982. His efforts were blocked by the Democratic House.

The Republican assault on the Department continued, led in the 1990s by then-Speaker Gingrich as well as Senator Bob Dole during his presidential run. However, it was President George W. Bush who expanded the Department to support his education platform and No Child Left Behind. What began as a 3,000-employee department in 1979 with a $12 billion budget, grew exponentially under President Bush and has continued to grow to its present level of approximately 5,000 employees and a $73 billion budget.

The real questions are: (1) Is the Department of Education constitutional; and (2) assuming that it is constitutional, is it fulfilling its mission?

Opponents have long argued that the Department of Education is unconstitutional. Their premise is that the Constitution is silent as to education, and therefore, the Federal Government lacks authority in that area. For those who still honor the Tenth and Ninth Amendments, this suggests that education should reside singularly within the purview of State and local governments.

Supporters have argued that the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3), in conjunction with the Tax and Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) provide an adequate basis for federal intervention. While neither is directly on point, it should be noted that the very existence of a Cabinet is only tangentially addressed in the Constitution. The President’s latitude to create a Cabinet is only implied under Article 2, Section 2, “[The President] may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices…,” and alluded to in Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment, which twice references “…a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments…”

If one embraces the argument that the Department of Education is unconstitutional, that is dispositive of the issue. In the alternative, if one accepts the constitutionality of ED’s existence, the question remains as to whether it is serving its intended purpose.

The Department of Education’s stated mission is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” Since the Department’s formation, the United States’ academic proficiencies have declined (as measured by international standards). Additionally, one could argue that ED has begun to expand its influence indirectly and perhaps inappropriately into curricula through programs like Common Core.

The issue of whether to continue to maintain a Department of Education would appear to be a legitimate one. It predominantly functions as an enormous grant organization with about 95 percent of its budget funding educational grants. It is fair to debate whether it should require nearly $3.65 billion of organizational infrastructure to deliver those grants.

That is why we have the right to vote and have our voices heard by our Congressional representatives. IVN encourages you to form an opinion and let your Representative know how you feel.

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

 

[1] A previous Department of Education was created in 1867, but within a year, it was reduced to agency, and later bureau status until 1953.

[2] The Department of Health and Human Services became the residual spinoff of the former Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

 

Read more

Are We Preconditioned to Accept or Reject Executive Orders?

SAN DIEGO, Ca., January 31, 2015 – With the recent rash of Executive Orders, political lines have been drawn in the sand. Supporters of President Trump have praised his use of Executive Orders as strongly as they had objected to it under the Obama Administration. Correspondingly, critics of the Trump Administration, who had previously endorsed former President Obama’s aggressive use of his “pen-and-phone” tactic, now shed tears and organize protests about the new Administration’s mirroring of that approach. One thing is for sure: political bias has generally triumphed over fact.

For the most part, political bias is predicated upon a premature cognitive commitment to a belief structure that each of the major parties has worked hard to engrain. It is a matter of behavioral conditioning designed to create “brand” loyalty. In politics, the major gating factor of how you might view an issue is often whether your party is in power.

For example: President Trump issued four Executive Orders during his first week in office; President Obama issued five. Did their actions seem the same to you or did the actions of your party’s president seem more reasonable and less abusive of the office than those of the other party’s president?

What would happen if we were to take a fresh approach? What if we placed our emotions on hold and read an Executive Order before we formed an opinion or allowed outside influences to form an opinion for us?

Let’s try an experiment.

Here is a link to the full text of President Trump’s latest Executive Order:  Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (as provided to the New York Times by the White House)

Read the text of the Executive Order and try to do so without bias (which admittedly is not easy). To facilitate the test, parse the information. Read each sentence or phrase separately. Then, decide whether it is reasonable. Divorce yourself from the content emotionally and determine whether you can attribute a rational basis for the particular sentence or phrase.

You do not need to agree or disagree with the statement or phrase philosophically; you only need to decide whether it is reasonable. You may even want to keep track of the number of sentences and phrases that you identify as factually acceptable as compared to the number you determine to be unreasonable.

When you have completed the exercise, evaluate whether the Executive Order was as “fair” or “unfair” as you believed it to be before you read it. That will give you an interesting insight into the degree of bias with which you perceive our political reality and, perhaps, the degree to which your belief structure may be influenced by media representations and by the behavioral conditioning orchestrated by your party.

Then, pretend you are President. What elements of the Executive Order would you add, broaden, narrow, or eliminate? How would you clarify other elements to lessen the opportunity for misinterpretation? Finally, determine whether your improvements have adequately addressed the possibility of adverse consequences if your assumptions prove to be wrong.

If you are particularly zealous, turn your attention to one of the equally controversial Executive Orders President Obama signed during his first week in office and complete the same exercise: Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.

Note: This exercise does not address whether Executive Orders are being used correctly or have been in the past. It merely focuses on whether your beliefs are factually or emotionally based. Do you gather facts and evaluate positions fairly, or are you more likely to be influenced by external sources who may not have your best interests in mind?

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

Read more

Reflecting Upon Another Anniversary of the War in Afghanistan

SAN DIEGO, Ca., – October 7, 2015, marks the 14th anniversary of the War in Afghanistan. During that time, we have spent over $700 billion and more than 2,200 American lives have been lost with countless others impacted by loss of limb and PTSD. Yet, Afghanistan stands primed to return to its past state once U.S. troops are removed.

This is what happens in the absence of a cogent foreign policy.

To stimulate a discussion about what our foreign policy should be, I offer an excerpt from an article I wrote for The Washington Times on March 20, 2012, entitled, A Rational Approach to Foreign Policy for the U.S.

“The original mission was to drive al-Qaeda from its safe haven in Afghanistan. While the mission was perhaps misguided (since we apparently only relocated the training centers to safe havens in Pakistan), it has long since been accomplished. However, we have chosen to remain to facilitate “nation-building.” Once again, we should be reminded of George Santayana’s quote, ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

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

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

“What are the consequences of that simple policy statement?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rather than taking a “Trumpesque” approach and just saying, “Believe me when I tell you, it will be great,” the article actually goes on to provide very specific details of how an approach of “sovereign respect” would need to be executed.

It concludes by suggesting:

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

Rather than defaulting to a major Party position, how would you craft our Nation’s foreign policy?

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

Read more

Congress Shouldn’t Get ‘Recess’ Until It Finishes Its Homework

SAN DIEGO, Ca., August 25, 2015 – Congress is in “recess”… a term that seems somewhat apropos since our legislators have acted so childishly in recent years. You can almost see them on the playground arguing over whose turn it is to pick first even though you already know who’s going to end up on both teams.

This is not to say that senators and representatives don’t deserve a break. They do — just as our president should be allowed to play an occasional round of golf. However, even schoolchildren are expected to complete their assignments before they’re given the privilege of enjoying recess. Yet, we don’t hold our elected officials to the same standard.

Congress recessed on July 31, and it won’t be back in session until September 9. The reason this is significant is because there are a few minor issues that remain to be resolved… like debating the nuclear deal with Iran… or approving a federal budget.

The nuclear deal with Iran represents one of two things. It’s either a brilliant plan to alter Iran’s most recent geo-political behavior, or it’s a potential flash point for a Middle East Armageddon. One would think that the issue is relevant enough to merit a change in the congressional calendar. Then again, that requires the assumption that Congress is still capable of demonstrating adult behavior.

Correspondingly, wouldn’t it be nice if our nation had a budget in place? Remember the shutdown in 2013? Well, there’s another one just around the corner. You may want to pay particular attention to the fact that these fiscal crises seem to occur just prior to an election year.

Rather than working toward a rational budgetary solution, Republicans and Democrats will spend time behind the scenes exploring how to place the blame on the other party in an effort turn their mutually irresponsible behavior into a political advantage.

We may see a reprise of the president having to make “tough decisions” such as which national parks and veterans’ memorials to close. Of course, the script almost writes itself. The administration is likely to make cuts that will inflict the highest level of pain on you and me without truly threatening our daily lives because that offers the greatest political potential.

Naturally, the cornerstone of budgetary recklessness, the Continuing Resolution or CR, may be invoked to save the day. This is the congressional equivalent of a note from home that asks us to please excuse our elected officials’ intellectual absence. In effect, it’s a slightly more plausible alibi than saying the dog ate their budget.

Do you remember December 18, 2013? That’s the last time Congress passed a full budget. Before that, it had limped along with nothing more than CRs since 1997. That’s right: Sixteen years had passed since Congress last honored its mandated responsibility to pass a budget. Sixteen years! That’s a lot of missed homework assignments.

Still, if history serves as any indication, we’ll return 90 percent of our federal officials to office who are up for re-election in 2016. As the saying goes, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”

I, for one, hope we’ll learn. Then again, missing a budget and forcing a shutdown seems rather insignificant when compared to a decision that might best be characterized by a mushroom-shaped cloud. Think about it.

Here are some questions to consider:

  1. Should Congress be in recess when critical, time-sensitive decisions are pending?
  2. Should Congress be permitted to ignore its mandate to pass a budget?
  3. Should Continuing Resolutions be limited in time and number to preclude their perpetual use?
  4. Should elected officials be routinely returned to office or should they be held accountable for their actions (or inaction)?

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, Deconstructed, in the Independent Voter News (IVN) after airing on The Daily Ledger on One America News on August 14, 2015.

Read more

How to find Substance in a Primary that lacks it

SAN DIEGO, Ca., August 19, 2015 – It’s that time again. Time to celebrate another presidential election cycle; an event that’s inching closer to becoming a perpetual race as opposed to a process that occurs every four years.

Did you catch the first Republican debate? There were so many candidates they had to split the field into two groups. It reminds me of when they have to add a gate to the Kentucky Derby to accommodate all the horses whose owners can afford the entrance fee.

It’s much the same with respect to these early primary shows. The candidates we get to see are the ones who have enough money to buy the media coverage, which amounts to an entrance fee.

You may have noticed I used the term “show” to describe these spectacles. That’s because using the word “debate” would be a misnomer.

The word “debate” refers to a formal discussion of topics in a public forum, in which opposing arguments are put forth. Conversely, the current format rarely offers differing opinions. Other than the occasional Christie-Paul dust-up, it’s more about personalities than it is policies and more about sound bites than it is solutions.

Of course, this criticism isn’t just aimed at the Republican Party. It would be true of the Democrats as well, assuming they could force their leading candidate to even entertain the idea of speaking to the issues rather than taking selfies with the Kardashians. However, Mrs. Clinton seems to have invoked a vow of silence that would impress a mime.

So, we’re left with a political version of the Celebrity Apprentice… literally. The only difference is that

Donald Trump only gets to fire the moderators.

So, how can we get something of substance from this charade? Here are two suggestions.

First: Dismiss candidates who announce they’re going to release plans about any given issue sometime in the future because they’re just buying time.

Here’s a news flash for those candidates. The presidential election will be held on November 8, 2016, and the date won’t change. No one forced you to enter the race this early, and if you don’t already have your plans in place, why did you throw your hat into the ring?

This is particularly appalling in the case of candidates who have previously run for president. They have no excuse not to be totally prepared. Those who ran in 2012 have had four years to refine their positions, and a certain candidate comes to mind who ran in 2008 and has had eight years to crystallize hers.

Secondly: The Oath of Office is as follows: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my abilities, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I’d suggest dismissing candidates who announce that they’ll repeal any law during their first day in office. While executive orders may be fair game, Article II of the Constitution does not give the president the authority to repeal acts of Congress. Therefore, candidates who claim they’ll repeal a law passed by the Legislative Branch are either intentionally misrepresenting the truth to emotionally appeal to low-information voters, or they fundamentally do not understand the Constitution that the Oath of Office requires them to “preserve, protect and defend.”

These two simple rules will narrow the field quickly on both sides of the aisle. Concentrate your time on vetting the legitimate candidates… and then, have the courage to cast an informed vote.

Here are some questions to consider:

What is the value of the current structure of presidential debates? Do they provide sufficient content with which to differentiate the candidates or serve more to emphasize form over substance?

Do the candidates state-specific solutions or generic positions? How does this impact your ability to make an informed decision as to which candidate to support?

Should candidates be thoroughly prepared before they choose to enter a race, or is it okay to form opinions as they move forward? Do you feel that you adequately understand the thought process each candidate might use to analyze problems and develop solutions?

Have you ever asked a candidate to recite the Oath of Office? Since this is the foundation of an elected official’s responsibility, shouldn’t candidates be familiar with their respective oaths? If you do not hold elected officials accountable for honoring their Oaths, for what can you hold them accountable?

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

This article first appeared in T.J. O’Hara’s recurring column, Deconstructed, in the Independent Voter News (IVN) after airing on The Daily Ledger on One America News on August 13, 2015.

Read more

What Would Make the Court ‘Supreme’?

SAN DIEGO, Ca., February 1, 2015 – President Trump has nominated Neil Gorsuch, currently a United States Court of Appeals judge for the Tenth Circuit, to serve on the United States Supreme Court. Let the political fallout begin.

Brace yourselves for several weeks of unmitigated praise as well as unbridled criticism; neither of which are designed to contribute to an unbiased vetting of the man or his qualifications to do the job. Instead, they are meant to mark the territory for each party in a way that does nothing for the people of the United States.

In a perfect world, Merrick Garland, chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and former President Obama’s last nominee, would have at least been given the courtesy of a confirmation hearing. Unfortunately, we live in a political world rather than a perfect one when it comes to anything involving the Federal Government.

On the plus side, Garland will be spared the unfair and demeaning attacks that Gorsuch almost certainly will suffer. Both men are accomplished jurists and deserve to be treated with respect.

What if we were to place an intellectual burden on the nomination and confirmation processes and require them to focus on the qualifications of any individual who is being considered to serve on the Supreme Court?

While there isn’t a job description for those who would sit on the Supreme Court, there are two oaths that Justices are required to take before they may execute the responsibilities of their office.

The first is set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 3331 as follows:

“I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.”

The second is the revised Judicial Oath defined at 28 U. S. C. § 453, which reads:

“I, [Name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [title of the judicial office being assumed] under the Constitution and laws of the United States.  So help me God.”

If these oaths became the basis for the selection process, Gorsuch should be confirmed just as Garland would have been had he been given the opportunity. While Gorsuch’s and Garland’s legal interpretations may occasionally differ, both have stellar judicial records and significant experience.

Notice that the common thread between the oaths is that the execution of duties is to be based upon the Constitution rather than personal opinion. The oaths require a Justice to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States” and to “faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all duties… under the Constitution.” [Emphasis added.]

Regrettably, nominations have become politicized. They are often made to satiate a constituency and orchestrate conformance to a political ideology; neither of which has anything to do with the actual responsibilities of those who serve. Luckily, once on the bench, Justices are free to exercise good judgment (although some seem increasingly challenged to do so).

Correspondingly, Senators and party zealots will unabashedly reverse their positions about confirmation depending upon which party is in power. This is a betrayal of our core principles, but don’t expect any past or present leaders to condemn it.

We should ask ourselves two questions: (1) Are our best interests truly served if nominees are selected and unduly pressured to produce predetermined results on specific issues; and (2) Should we be able to predict the vote of the Supreme Court, or are we better served by an informed debate that honors the oaths that are required of its Justices?

Federal law is clear in some regards and nebulous in others. When clarity is required, it merits an untainted, rational debate predicated upon facts. Decisions should not be reduced to personal prejudices that undermine the very concept of impartiality, and we should not need to “stack” the Court to obtain justice.

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

Read more

Partisan Bias Conditions Many to Accept or Reject Executive Orders

SAN DIEGO, Ca., January 31, 2017 – With the recent rash of executive orders, political lines have been drawn in the sand. Supporters of President Trump have praised his use of executive orders as strongly as they had objected to it under the Obama administration. Correspondingly, critics of the Trump administration, who had previously endorsed former President Obama’s aggressive use of his “pen-and-phone” tactic, now shed tears and organize protests about the new administration’s mirroring of that approach. One thing is for sure: political bias has generally triumphed over fact.

For the most part, political bias is predicated upon a premature cognitive commitment to a belief structure that each of the major parties has worked hard to engrain. It is a matter of behavioral conditioning designed to create “brand” loyalty. In politics, the major gating factor of how you might view an issue is often whether your party is in power.

For example: President Trump issued four executive orders during his first week in office; President Obama issued five. Did their actions seem the same to you or did the actions of your party’s president seem more reasonable and less abusive of the office than those of the other party’s president?

What would happen if we were to take a fresh approach? What if we placed our emotions on hold and read an executive order before we formed an opinion or allowed outside influences to form an opinion for us?

Let’s try an experiment.

Here is a link to the full text of President Trump’s latest executive order:  Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (as provided to the New York Times by the White House)

Read the text of the executive order and try to do so without bias (which admittedly is not easy). To facilitate the test, parse the information. Read each sentence or phrase separately. Then, decide whether it is reasonable. Divorce yourself from the content emotionally and determine whether you can attribute a rational basis for the particular sentence or phrase.

You do not need to agree or disagree with the statement or phrase philosophically; you only need to decide whether it is reasonable. You may even want to keep track of the number of sentences and phrases that you identify as factually acceptable as compared to the number you determine to be unreasonable.

When you have completed the exercise, evaluate whether the executive order was as “fair” or “unfair” as you believed it to be before you read it. That will give you an interesting insight into the degree of bias with which you perceive our political reality and, perhaps, the degree to which your belief structure may be influenced by media representations and by the behavioral conditioning orchestrated by your party.

Then, pretend you are president. What elements of the executive order would you add, broaden, narrow, or eliminate? How would you clarify other elements to lessen the opportunity for misinterpretation? Finally, determine whether your improvements have adequately addressed the possibility of adverse consequences if your assumptions prove to be wrong.

If you are particularly zealous, turn your attention to one of the equally controversial executive orders President Obama signed during his first week in office and complete the same exercise: Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.

Note: This exercise does not address whether executive orders are being used correctly or have been in the past. It merely focuses on whether your beliefs are factually or emotionally based. Do you gather facts and evaluate positions fairly, or are you more likely to be influenced by external sources who may not have your best interests in mind?

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

Read more

Are We Preconditioned to Accept or Reject Executive Orders?

SAN DIEGO, Ca., January 31, 2015 – With the recent rash of Executive Orders, political lines have been drawn in the sand. Supporters of President Trump have praised his use of Executive Orders as strongly as they had objected to it under the Obama Administration. Correspondingly, critics of the Trump Administration, who had previously endorsed former President Obama’s aggressive use of his “pen-and-phone” tactic, now shed tears and organize protests about the new Administration’s mirroring of that approach. One thing is for sure: political bias has generally triumphed over fact.

For the most part, political bias is predicated upon a premature cognitive commitment to a belief structure that each of the major parties has worked hard to engrain. It is a matter of behavioral conditioning designed to create “brand” loyalty. In politics, the major gating factor of how you might view an issue is often whether your party is in power.

For example: President Trump issued four Executive Orders during his first week in office; President Obama issued five. Did their actions seem the same to you or did the actions of your party’s president seem more reasonable and less abusive of the office than those of the other party’s president?

What would happen if we were to take a fresh approach? What if we placed our emotions on hold and read an Executive Order before we formed an opinion or allowed outside influences to form an opinion for us?

Let’s try an experiment.

Here is a link to the full text of President Trump’s latest Executive Order:  Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into the United States (as provided to the New York Times by the White House)

Read the text of the Executive Order and try to do so without bias (which admittedly is not easy). To facilitate the test, parse the information. Read each sentence or phrase separately. Then, decide whether it is reasonable. Divorce yourself from the content emotionally and determine whether you can attribute a rational basis for the particular sentence or phrase.

You do not need to agree or disagree with the statement or phrase philosophically; you only need to decide whether it is reasonable. You may even want to keep track of the number of sentences and phrases that you identify as factually acceptable as compared to the number you determine to be unreasonable.

When you have completed the exercise, evaluate whether the Executive Order was as “fair” or “unfair” as you believed it to be before you read it. That will give you an interesting insight into the degree of bias with which you perceive our political reality and, perhaps, the degree to which your belief structure may be influenced by media representations and by the behavioral conditioning orchestrated by your party.

Then, pretend you are President. What elements of the Executive Order would you add, broaden, narrow, or eliminate? How would you clarify other elements to lessen the opportunity for misinterpretation? Finally, determine whether your improvements have adequately addressed the possibility of adverse consequences if your assumptions prove to be wrong.

If you are particularly zealous, turn your attention to one of the equally controversial Executive Orders President Obama signed during his first week in office and complete the same exercise: Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities.

Note: This exercise does not address whether Executive Orders are being used correctly or have been in the past. It merely focuses on whether your beliefs are factually or emotionally based. Do you gather facts and evaluate positions fairly, or are you more likely to be influenced by external sources who may not have your best interests in mind?

__________

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. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

Read more

Can Congress Grant Us A ‘Pardon’ from the State of the Union?

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., January 8, 2014 — As those of you who are familiar with my work already know, I examine our government from an unusual perspective; one that assumes that it must follow the Constitution. Accordingly, I respect proposed solutions that adhere to that premise while forcing us into the uncomfortable realm of hosting “a civil assessment” of their merit. In that regard, I offer the suggestion of Scot Faulkner to bypass this year’s State of the Union Address.

For purposes of full disclosure, Scot is a dear personal friend with an extraordinary background in government. He worked in the Reagan administration and served in executive positions in the FAA, GSA, and Peace Corps. He also was the first Chief Administrative Officer of the United States House of Representatives. In that capacity, he created a model of operations that has been adopted by 44 national parliaments and named one of the Top 100 Innovations in American Government by the Ford Foundation and Harvard University.

Bottom line: When Scot Faulkner speaks, we all should listen.

While Scot’s political compass generally points “due Conservative,” his suggestion to abandon this year’s State of the Union Address also provides “direction” from a nonpartisan perspective.

In an article he recently published (Invitation Only), Scot correctly states that “Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution only requires the President to ‘from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union.’” It is not an address that is required to be given every year.

He also highlights: “There is also no requirement that Congress grant the President the use of their Chamber for this ritualized infomercial.” The President must be invited to present to the joint Chambers, which requires a Concurrent Resolution proposed and voted on by the House.

I find Scot’s characterization of the State of the Union Address to be compelling. It has become little more than a “ritualized infomercial.”

The White House has already announced that the President will begin touring the country in the coming weeks to share his agenda; the same one he will be sharing during his SOTU, and the same one he will be reiterating as he tours the country in the weeks that follow after the address.

The President’s SOTU will be personal and partisan as opposed to being focused on “We the People.” It will provide meaningless platitudes concerning our progress, celebrate successes as if they were unilaterally achieved on a partisan basis, and not-so-subtly denigrate the opposing Party.

This isn’t particularly unique to this President. It simply has become a tradition regardless of which Party has held the White House. “We the People” deserve better.

While the cited article is focused on re-establishing Republican power on the Hill, the premise behind Mr. Faulkner’s suggestion can have a far greater impact. As he asserts, if Congress were to choose not to invite the President to deliver a State of the Union Address, it might “realign the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches” and perhaps even encourage President Obama to return to his senatorial days when he denounced the use of executive orders and memoranda.

 

Recent administrations have aggressively expanded the powers of the Executive Branch well beyond anything that was reasonably contemplated by the Constitution. Democrats decried the practice during the Bush years just as Republicans have denounced it during President Obama’s two terms.

Interestingly, the only shared phrase in every federal Oath of Office requires a commitment to “defend the Constitution of the United States.” What if we were to hold our elected officials to their word… at least this one time? What if we were to accentuate the separation of powers between the three branches of government that the Framers intended?

We might anticipate several consequences to arise from a refusal to invite the president to conduct what has become an annual ceremony marred by its precipitous decline in audience and relevant content.

First: the minority Party would try to capitalize on the “snub” to raise money and fan political emotions. We would be told that the majority Party is demonstrating its contempt for the President and our nation and that it must be thrown out of office in 2016 (please send money).

Please note: It does not matter which Party holds the White House versus which is the majority in Congress. Either Party would use the anger and fear they could create among their constituents to extort money and votes.

Second: We would be told that this is just a callous attempt by the majority to suppress the minority’s voice and to deny the American people the right to hear from their President.

This is absurd on several levels. The Party arguing “suppression” is the same Party that exercised the “nuclear option” on November 21, 2013, in the Senate to subdue the voice of the minority more directly and consistently (when it wasn’t theirs).

Additionally, the President can articulate his agenda (as he will be doing both before and after the SOTU) without ever going through the pomp and circumstance of doing so in front of the combined chambers with the Joint Chiefs and Supreme Court justices in tow. We will simply be spared what has become a political version of reality television including the President’s perfunctory acknowledgment of “guests” seated next to the First Lady, about whom he pretends to care; a practice that is as uncomfortable as watching New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R) in the owner’s box at a football game.

Third: We would be told that this is an unprecedented affront to the President, and a few intellectually challenged sycophants would almost assuredly claim it to be irrefutable proof of racism on the part of all Republicans.

The latter exhortation could be combined with the current hoopla over House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) who is trying to apply the idiocy of one individual to his Party’s entire membership. Given that neither Party has a monopoly on stupidity, it is a shame that U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) is not still alive to deliver the argument on behalf of his Party.

Correspondingly, Mr. Faulkner provides a history lesson for those who think that it would be “unprecedented” not to host a State of the Union Address:

“President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech in person before a Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 1790. Since then, there have been 223 opportunities for Presidents to deliver their report. Presidents have delivered their report as a speech before a Joint Session of Congress only 98 times (44%). The other 125 times were through written communication. “George Washington and John Adams delivered their State of the Union reports as speeches, but Thomas Jefferson was more comfortable with the written word. For 113 years, no other President delivered a State of the Union speech until Democrat Woodrow Wilson on December 2, 1913. President Warren Harding continued this new practice as did Calvin Coolidge, once

 “For ten years, Congress did not have to arrange a Joint Session for the State of the Union Address. Then, Democrat Franklin Roosevelt asked for the forum in 1934. In 1946, President Harry Truman opted out of a formal speech because, during the previous nine months, he had spoken to five Joint Sessions of Congress relating to the end of World War II. In 1956, President Eisenhower opted out of the speech because he was still recovering from his September 24, 1955, heart attack.

“No one really missed the Presidential vanity hour. Twenty-six Presidents, including two of America’s greatest Presidential orators, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, choose not to speak to the Congress. Congress still operated. Legislative business continued.”

Thank you, Mr. Faulkner, for putting things in perspective.

Will Congress exercise the novel approach that Scot has suggested? No. However if it did, it just might change the character of the affair.

It might remind this and future Presidents that their power is limited and that their focus should be on serving the best interests of the people rather than the best interests of their particular Party. It might make the State of the Union Address regain its importance rather than allowing it to remain the shallow celebration of personal glorification and political aggrandizement it has become.

If that were to happen, we might once again witness the emergence of a United States of America as opposed to a divided one. Think about it.

__________

T.J. O’Hara is an internationally recognized author, speaker, and strategic consultant in the private and public sectors. In 2012, he emerged as the leading independent candidate for the Office of President of the United States and the first nominee of the Whig Party in over 150 years. He also has served as the Principal Political Analyst and host of Deconstructed for the Independent Voter News (IVN).

__________

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

Read more