Buy Partisan Support

Last year at this time, I wrote the tongue-in-cheek article entitled: All I Want for Christmas is a Senate Seat. I was inspired by then Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s alleged entrepreneurial efforts to sell a Senate seat on the open market. Back then, I thought it was just a one-time opportunity to whimsically explore the possibility of buying one’s way into our Federal government. A year later, I see that the concept has been taken to new levels of audacity.

Witness the recent dealings surrounding the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” as passed by the United States Senate … or should I say “as marketed” within the United States Senate. In a grand display of bipartisanism (i.e., cooperation between Democrats who voted for the bill based on principle … and Democrats who voted for the bill based on economic inducements), new evidence has surfaced as to how much a seat in our government may be worth. While my original guess in All I Want for Christmas is a Senate Seat was $8.5 million, I’m beginning to rethink the math. It appears to be taking $100 million or more just to buy a Senator’s vote these days! Of course, as “trillions” have now replaced “billions“ as the standard political metric, I guess this type of inflation is reasonable to expect. For example:

In return for her support, Senator Mary Landrieu (D) of Louisiana secured $300 million to fund the mandated expansion of Medicaid within her state, while most other states will be required to add enrollees to their Medicaid programs without any Federal funds to pay for the additional costs.

Similarly, Senator Patrick Leahy (D) of Vermont negotiated $250 million in favorable Medicaid payment treatment for his state over a six-year period, and Massachusetts will receive a temporary “stay” of Medicaid payments as well. This latter benefit may have been orchestrated to honor the recently departed Senator Ted Kennedy (D), “The Lion of the Senate,” who worked so diligently throughout his career to drive for such legislation ... even though “driving” was never really his core competency.

An appropriation of $100 million was made in the bill to fund construction of a health care facility “at a public research university in the United States that contains a state’s sole public academic medical and dental school.” Connecticut Senator Christopher Dodd is pursuing this appropriation vigorously since his state is one of the few that qualifies under the definition. If the Health and Human Services Department (which controls the appropriation) fails to award it to the University of Connecticut, no worries … I’m sure Senator Dodd can probably get a favorable loan for the project from Countrywide Financial.

Montana Senator Max Baucus (D) successfully lobbied for Medicare coverage for every miner exposed to asbestos poisoning … as long as they worked at a mine in Libby, Montana. But hey, expansive social change has to start somewhere! Additionally, there are formulae in the bill that allow doctors and hospitals in Montana (as well as North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming) to get paid more than doctors and hospitals in other states. Then again, from a population standpoint, there probably aren’t enough doctors and hospitals in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah or Wyoming to make the disparity too significant.

Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson (D) is projected to have earned $100 million for his constituency in return for his willingness to cast the deciding vote. As a result, Nebraska will be exempt from the cost of mandatory Medicaid expansion. Instead, the Federal government will be picking up 100 percent of the tab … in perpetuity. Personally, if medical costs rise as expected in the future, I think the “perpetuity” aspect of this deal makes it worth a lot more than $100 million.

Besides, Senator Nelson also fashioned an exemption from the insurance tax on non-profit insurers. His exemption only applies to the Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company in (you guessed it) Nebraska and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Non-Profit Plan in Michigan. Michigan was a “throw in” since Michigan Senator Carl Levin (D) couldn’t get the job done on his own. Does anyone want to bet on whether Senator Levin will return the favor sometime in the near future?

Big Ben also “clocked” the bill for one other special benefit that pertains to the small number of physician-owned hospitals that are being built around the country; one of which is being built in Bellevue, Nebraska. Senator Nelson was able to have certain deadlines extended in the bill that will allow the physician-owned hospital in Nebraska to circumvent a future Senate ban against receiving referrals from the doctors who own them.

Not to get your “Nelsons” confused: Florida Senator Bill Nelson (D) was able to have the Medicare Advantage benefits of the hundreds of thousands of seniors in Florida who participate these plans “grandfathered in” under the bill. While this also impacts seniors in other states, their numbers are insignificant as compared to the number of seniors receiving such preferential treatment in Florida.

Maybe it’s just me, but the Ben and Bill Nelson duo reminds me of another famous pair in American history: Frank and Jesse James. First, we had the James Gang, and now we have the Nelson Gang. In their own unique way, they somewhat share the same profession. The James Gang just didn’t have the skill set of the Nelson Gang, so their “transactions” were of a much smaller scale.

While we’re on the subject, this brings to mind another well known desperado: Willie Sutton. Also known as “The Actor” and “Slick Willie” (no relation to Bill Clinton), Willie Sutton was once asked why he robbed banks … to which he replied, “Because that's where the money is." So, if you’re at all confused as to why politicians take money from the American taxpayers, don’t be. It’s because “that’s where the money is.”

Whatever happened to “equal protection” under the 14th Amendment rather than fashioning legislation in a way that features more carve-outs than a Thanksgiving turkey? Maybe this is just reflective of the “Change” we were all promised. The Senate and the House of Representatives have certainly “changed” … moving more toward the direction of traditional Chicago politics: backroom deals; brokered favors; all at the expense of our Nation at-large.

If you’re waiting for those publicly televised health care debates on C-SPAN that were repeatedly promised during the Presidential campaign, you can stop waiting. It’s tough to be “transparent” behind closed doors in the proverbial “smoked-filled rooms” where the real “legislating” is taking place. Perhaps the “smoke” is diffusing the light in the room too much to afford our government the opportunity to operate with “transparency.” Perhaps “translucency” should be its goal. That would at least beat the opaque approach that has been in effect during the framing of health care reform.

However, at least one good thing has come from all of this. Congress has finally made great progress toward the President’s campaign pledge to achieve “bipartisan support.” What … you say the vote was strictly along party lines? Well, sure it was! The President never suggested it wouldn’t be. I’m sure Press Secretary Gibbs would be quick to point out that what the President meant to say was that, under his Administration, you would be able to “buy” partisan support for almost anything.

Happy New Year!

2009 © Dr. Terrance J. O’Hara. All Rights Reserved.

Cash for Congress (a new Economic Stimulus Idea)

Just the other day, I listened intently as our President addressed the Nation from the hallowed halls of Home Depot. He spoke (without Teleprompters I might add) about a new program that he endorses, which has since been dubbed “Cash for Caulkers.”

Similar to the now famous (or is that infamous … I always get them confused) “Cash for Clunkers” program, this is in effect a “retirement” program. Basically, President Obama called upon Congress to approve a bill that would encourage Americans to “retire” inefficient energy systems within their homes and replace them with newer, more efficient systems. New doors, windows, insulation, attic fans, HVAC … the possibilities are endless.

While the President stated that the "idea may not be very glamorous," he admitted that he thinks “insulation is sexy." The First Lady, who was reported to be meeting with Elin Woods’ attorney, has been unavailable for comment, but there’s a possibility that the President did not intend his comment to be taken literally. In my opinion, he clarified that he was using the phrase in a metaphorical sense when he said, "Here's what's sexy about it: saving money." Now, that’s something Congressional Members can wrap their minds around since money has often been tied to sex in Washington, D.C.

I’m not so cynical as to believe that this was just an attempt to stage a “common man” press conference as a precursor to the Copenhagen Climate Conference in which the President will participate later this week. To the contrary: under a current proposal being drafted behind closed doors by the transparent Democratic Members of Congress, the “Cash for Caulkers” program is only expected to cost about $20 billion. The cost associated with the Presidents triumphant return to Copenhagen (where he lobbied so effectively on behalf of Chicago for the Olympic Games) are rumored to be closer to $100 billion in taxpayer money.

The good news is that the $20 billion would be used to offer incentives of $1,000 to $3,000 (or more) to people to improve the energy efficiency of their homes. Supporters of the bill (who’ve never been right before) project that 5 million homes could be retrofitted under the program, which would result in a savings of $3.3 billion in home energy bills each year. So far, so good! Even better: proponents believe that the majority of the products would be made in the United States and 100% of the associated labor would be local. Thus, the program will create real jobs. Hooray!

Not to rain on a leaky roof that might need to be replaced … but to really pull this off, we’ll need new government agencies established throughout the country to monitor the process to make sure that fraud doesn’t creep into the equation: contractors will have to be licensed, materials will have to be certified, installations will have to be confirmed, etc. On the plus side, this will create thousands of new jobs just to keep track of the rebates; jobs that can be paid for with your tax dollars. If we don’t put the controls in place, the program will at least provide jobs to countless illegal aliens who will end up doing the work in the southwest.

Between this and the Copenhagen Climate Conference, I’m proud we have our first “Green” President (can I say that?). His rhetoric inspires me. As a matter of fact, his Home Depot speech gave me a great idea. It came when he said, "If you saw $20 bills just sort of floating through the window up into the atmosphere, you'd try to figure out how you were going to keep that. But that's exactly what's happening because of the lack of efficiency in our buildings." It was then that it hit me. I look at Congress the exact same way. It’s like seeing $20 billion “just sort of floating through the window up into the atmosphere,” and I’d like to “try to figure out how (we) were going to keep that” because that’s exactly what’s happening due to the “lack of efficiency” (or should I say “integrity”) in Congress.

So, here’s my idea: let’s create a “Cash for Congress” program. Send me a minimum contribution of $10 (but as much as you’d like to donate). I’ll set up a separate bank account for the “Cash for Congress” program so that it will be easy to audit. In the spirit of transparency, I will keep 10% for administrative costs. After next November’s elections, I will distribute the other 90% on a pro rata basis to a Veterans’ program in each State in which one or more Senator or Congressperson is “retired” and replaced with someone more “efficient” … preferably someone who is at least familiar with the Constitution and has an understanding of the value of money. If 50 States each replace one representative, they’ll each get 1/50 of the residual pool. If one State replaces 2 representatives and the rest replace just one, it will get 2/51 of the pool and the other 49 will get 1/51. Get it? The math is easy. So is the concept: just turn in your Congressional “Clunker” and invest your vote in someone new who understands that their role is to serve you as civil servant … rather than as a demigod. Talk about an economic stimulus program; this one could save trillions of dollars.

Why make the donation to a Veterans’ program in each State? Because, more than any other group, veterans understand what this country stands for and have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice their self interests to protect and preserve the ideals of this great Nation. If you disagree, just keep your money. Maybe you can buy some subsidized insulation with it … or apply it to your taxes to support all of the new federal agencies.

*****

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have.”

– Thomas Jefferson

2009 © Dr. T.J. O’Hara

A Christmas Wish

Please join me in thanking our troops this holiday season for their gallant service. They stand in harms way so that we may live our lives in freedom and help others move toward that same goal. It should not matter whether you support any related political policies. It should only matter that these dedicated individuals represent us all in the most pure and unselfish way.

Each year, Xerox gives us a way to reach out and thank our troops for their service. It only takes a few minutes of your time (three mouse clicks) to share your thoughts and prayers with a member of our armed forces. Please take a moment to reach out to these brave men and women to let them know you care by going to www.LetsSayThanks.com.

Thank you!

How to Frame a Politically Correct Thanksgiving Blessing

During this brief respite during which we are reminded to “give thanks” for the blessings in our lives, I was curious as to how such blessings might be appropriately framed within the context of our increasingly politically correct world. In the old days (just a few years ago), it was easy … you just thanked God.

Much to the undoubted dismay of many progressive thinkers, even President Clinton used to invoke God. During his mea culpa concerning the Monica Lewinski scandal, President Clinton said, "This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people. Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most -- my wife and our daughter -- and our God. I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so."

One can only guess that the name of God might have been spoken on a number of occasions during the actual affair itself, but that is separate from the issue at hand. Besides, by today’s standards, President Clinton is probably viewed as a conservative … so his beliefs shouldn’t really count.

Heaven forbid we thank God for anything today (… oops, old habits are hard to break). To do so would risk the ire of the ACLU and similarly predisposed intellectual giants (who surprisingly can’t seem to entertain even the possibility of a superior being or life force). With a liberal agenda that is increasingly stripping away the individual freedoms that apparently stand in the way of establishing a more benign and amorphous society, giving up God is a small price to pay.

After all, what did the framers of the Constitution know anyway? They probably weren’t thinking clearly when they drafted the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” Hey, it was just their first Amendment. They probably hadn’t quite gotten the “hang” of it. I’m sure they really meant to include the phrase with which we have all become so familiar … “There shall be a separation of church and state” … which, by the way, does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

In any case, here’s my pass at a politically correct Thanksgiving blessing:

Dear Me (note: it is more appropriate PC to reference “self” rather than the Almighty),

Thank Me for My work ethic, or lack thereof, and for the bounty it brought to Me and My family unit or individual household … or for that bounty which was delivered through the hard work of others and redistributed to Me and My family unit or individual household by My government. If such rewards were derived as a result of My direct contribution to the betterment of society, thank Me for my efforts. If such rewards were derived through the redistribution of wealth created by the tireless efforts others, thank Me for having the willingness not to contribute in a meaningful way … thereby unselfishly creating the opportunity to fulfill the charitable desires of others. Thank Me also for submissively acquiescing to the relinquishment of My individual freedom of choice, as well as the freedom of choice of others, to support an evolving society in which a small and reasonably inexperienced minority of individuals make choices for us. Thank Me for My health, which may soon be protected as directed by others; for the patience to wait long periods of time to see a physician; and for My understanding in the event that I am told that I do not merit the available care. Thank Me for embracing the peace and safety of My country while condemning its past efforts to ensure that such unbridled expectations are met, and similarly, while lauding public apologies made to other countries whose peace and safety was also enhanced by such actions. And, dear Me … thank Me for accepting political correctness, surrendering my beliefs to more vocal minorities, and allowing decisions to be made that will tax the economic and emotional wherewithal of generations to come … long after I’m gone.

Amen and/or Awomen.

*****

Sorry! I just can’t do this, so …

Happy Thanksgiving and God bless!

Copyright © 2009, Dr. T.J. O’Hara

How to Avoid a $9 Trillion Deficit

In fiscal year 2008, the federal government recorded a total budget deficit of $455 billion, which was $293 billion more than the deficit incurred in 2007. While this increase occurred with a Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and Senate, all right-minded people (… or should that be all left-minded people?) know that George W. Bush was solely responsible for this deficit. Thank God that President Obama arrived on the scene to save our economy “from the brink” (or should I have said, “Thank goodness” since it’s politically incorrect to “thank God” for anything anymore). Luckily, he also has Vice President Biden at his side to monitor the well-thought out economic stimulus program since “Nobody messes with Joe!” As a result, we cut the deficit to about $1.8 trillion.

What? You’re telling me that $1.8 trillion is nearly four times MORE debt? You’re kidding, right? Hmmmm … the next thing you’re going to tell me is the $9 trillion deficit that’s being projected for 10 years from now is even bigger! How much is $9 trillion any way?

Let’s see: If I earned something in excess of minimum wage … let’s say $9.00 per hour … and worked 40 hours per week, I’d make $18,720 per year. At that rate, assuming I started working at birth, I’d only have to live to be about 481 million years old to pay off the debt (not including interest). Okay, that seems a bit extreme … even with improved healthcare.

What if I was a union worker or got an immediate raise “because of my promise” (in the spirit of Nobel) and was paid $9,000,000 per hour? Then, I’d only have to live to be 481 years old and work 1 million hours. I guess I’d really have to like my job!

It looks like establishing a $9 trillion deficit might be worth more than a casual conversation. I mean … we’re talking $9,000,000,000,000. That’s 9 followed by 12 zeroes. So, if I were President, what would I do? Is there an alternative? The good news is, under my plan, we can reduce the projected deficit, eliminate unemployment and, in fact create a single class of “rich” people.

“Too good to be true,” you say? Consider that the last census (2007) said there are 281,421,906 citizens in the United States and that the average household size is 2.59 people. That means there are approximately 115,830,120 households in our country. As President, I would declare a “state of emergency” and ordain the need for an immediate Economic Stimulus Program (“ESP” for short) to save us from the situation I “inherited.” Using ESP, I would decree each household to be a government agency unto itself (thereby eliminating unemployment), and I would have Congress provide $250,000 to each and every household (thereby eliminating poverty). All for a cost of only $27,164,276,640,927.

But wait … you say $27 trillion and change is more than $9 trillion? You may be right. I was never particularly good at math (which is why I won’t release my college transcripts), but it doesn’t matter! You see: with a household income of $250,000, everybody is “rich” by definition … and nobody likes the rich! Going back to the days of a 70% tax on those bastards, the government recovers $19,014,993,648,649. That means the real cost to the government is only $8,149,282,992,278 after we collect the taxes ... and that, my friends, is less that $9 trillion.

Eureka! I’ve done it. I’ve reduced the debt, eliminated unemployment and poverty, and made every single American household “rich.” Quick … somebody give me the Nobel Prize for Economics.

The really cool aspect of this is that no one has to work for a living other than a small group of IRS employees (to collect the taxes) and the Congressional leadership and me so that our country has people to attend state functions with the political hierarchy of less fortunate countries. In return for our diligent efforts on behalf of our citizens, we would of course be exempt from taxes, mandated flu shots, and public option plans for healthcare, retirement, etc.

Over time, the cost of ESP will go down. As our Nation’s demographics shift when Baby Boomers are replaced by less numerically prolific generations, there will be fewer households to fund. With everyone will being “rich,” the expense associated with public education can be reduced or eliminated since there will be less motivation to learn anything. Law enforcement costs should also go down because there will be little reason to rob, steal, mug, burglarize, etc. Even healthcare cost should decline as the stress of having to earn a living will have been eradicated, and citizens will have more time to relax and gain a disproportionate “balance” in their lives.

This is all good news because I really didn’t know how to sustain the program over time when I first thought of it. If it weren’t for the demographic shift and all of the future cost savings that make ESP “deficit neutral,” I would have had to defer the start of this program until the end of my term, so any adverse consequences would become the problem of my successor. Then again, if for any reason my program doesn’t work, maybe we can just throw a TARP over it.

2009 (C) Dr. T.J. O'Hara

The Ignorance Tax

I’ve listened with great amusement to the ramblings of various politicians who profess to have the cure for our suffering economy. They seem far more adept at fixing the blame … than fixing the problem.

During the recent Presidential race, the winning candidate promised “no new taxes” … at least with the exception of a small minority of individuals whose collective votes cannot possibly sway an election. Now, having seen how well that phrase faired for George H. W. Bush after the 1988 Republican Convention (i.e., “Read my lips … no new taxes”), you would have thought that no one would ever have the temerity to use that phrase again. However, it seems as long as you can skillfully argue for a caste system that plays one segment of society against another (i.e., the “Haves” versus the “Have Nots”), it ostensibly still has appeal.

The nuances of class warfare seem beyond the comprehension of the losing party. The Republicans had the audacity to float the idea of a flat tax and, even more audaciously, the idea of possibly incorporating it within a value-added tax (as some other countries successfully do). What were they thinking?

The flat tax concept is based upon the premise that everybody should pay their fair share and be treated as equals. How un-American! It’s easy to see why this can’t work. Let’s say everyone paid a 23% income tax, and we eliminated all deductions because we intuitively “know” they must be loopholes that only benefit the rich. On the new, one-page Form 1040, you’d write down your income, multiply the number by 23% and pay that amount (basically: 23% of Income = Tax Owed). Even the Secretary of the Treasury could figure that out! If a poor person made $10,000 and a rich person made $100,000, the poor person would pay $2,300 in income taxes and the rich person would pay $23,000. Okay so far! However, the poor person would only have $7,300 to spend while the rich person would have $73,000. How utterly unfair! I’d feel much better about it if we could add their net pay together and divide it by two so they could both take home $40,150. Now, that’s what I call equality: equal pay for equal work ... at least in the democratic sense.

The second concept is very similar but is even more controversial. It potentially would eliminate the IRS and all of the jobs it creates for America. Egad! What would happen to the law firm ads on TV that promise to protect us from IRS harassment if we haven’t filed our returns for the past seven years? Unemployment would skyrocket since the IRS employs about 102,000 people, and another 1.2 million private sector workers help us prepare our taxes on a seasonal basis (133,700 at H&R Block alone). It is fascinating that seasonal workers can apparently understand the 55,000+ pages of tax code when our Secretary of the Treasury clearly cannot. I suppose if it weren’t for those skilled seasonal workers, more of us would be qualified to serve in a Cabinet position at the White House … but I digress.

The current tax code calls for a graduated income tax under which the rich are taxed aggressively and the poor are taxed on a far more limited basis … if at all. Even though it takes 55,000+ pages of Code and about 1.3 million people to pull this off, the good news is that 5% of the people pay 60% of the taxes that fund our government. How cool is that? There’s a 95% chance that you’re not one of them … and even a better chance if you don’t work particularly hard.

So, now that we’ve established that the current graduated income tax is a good thing, let’s spend a few trillion dollars. Besides, we can always raise taxes on the rich and print more money in the interim. With respect to the latter, our money supply is growing by leaps and bounds. I remember the days when a billion dollars was considered to be a lot of money. Now, our Congressional leadership can pass a bill that spends 1,000 times that much without even meriting a detailed review because everything is a “crisis” and we have to “buck up” (thank goodness there wasn’t a Freudian slip when the President made that inspirational comment).

So, what’s the impact of the surge in our money supply? Well, there’s this thing call “inflation.” A rough rule of thumb is that the rate of inflation in the following year can be estimated by subtracting the rate of growth in productivity from the rate of growth of the money supply. For example: the current growth rate of our money supply is 16% while our rate of growth in productivity is 1.8%. That’s a projected rate of inflation of 14.2% … and Jimmy Carter isn’t even President!

Let’s say that projection is overzealous. Let’s be conservative (or at least less liberal) and cut it in half. Then we’d have a rate of inflation rate equal to 7.1%. For every dollar I presently spend on food, I’ll get to spend a little over $1.07. The same would be true for gasoline, clothing, housing, utilities, etc. In fact, on average, I’ll get to spend 7.1% more on everything.

Since the rich and the poor both have to buy products and services, a 7.1% increase in prices essentially impacts them equally … much like a flat tax or value-added tax. Luckily, we don’t call it a “tax” even though it’s driven by government action and is applied against the purchasing power of our income. Sure, it feels like a tax, but it’s not. Trust me! Otherwise, the phrase “no new taxes” would just be political rhetoric that was used to capture votes.

I can tell by your expression that you’re not happy. You’re just not buying my argument on behalf of the administration. Okay, you want “change” … you’re going to get “change.” Here’s the truth (… now, that’s what I call “change”). Sponsoring programs we cannot afford and funding them by increasing the money supply and more aggressively taxing the rich will lead to a pretty hefty rate of inflation for some period of time. So, while the winning party may not directly increase taxes on anyone but “those who earn over $250,000,” the reality is that the other 95% of the population will incur an indirect tax in the form of inflation.

Personally, I like the concept of “inflation.” It lets me cling to political rhetoric; cling to the belief that the government can continue to create new programs without having the money to pay for them; and cling to the belief that the “way out” is to print more money and more aggressively tax the rich. Yes, “inflation” is a term with which I’m comfortable. Besides, it’s much better than renaming it “The Ignorance Tax.”

Copyright (c) 2009 Dr. T.J. O'Hara

I Almost Won The Nobel Peace Prize

This shall serve as my concession speech … for I have lost the Nobel Peace Prize. Of course, pundits will tell me that my chances would have dramatically improved had I placed my name in nomination, but I felt confident that someone would have nominated me without my knowledge.

I have outstanding qualifications. I voted in the last election, which is a clear demonstration of my commitment to democracy; I have historically supported the position that nuclear war would be a bad thing; and I have often openly wished for “peace on Earth, good will to men … and women” (so as to avoid any assertion of gender bias).

Alas, I have fallen to individuals who have a greater claim to recognition:

1. FIRST PLACE: President Barack Hussein Obama. In this particular case, it is appropriate to include the President’s middle name because part of the reasoning associated with awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to him was for his outreach to the Muslim community. The other foundation upon which the award was based was his “extraordinary” effort to promote world peace … in the form of a few of speeches. It has been speculated that yet a third reason exists: the Norwegian delegation’s overt effort to clarify that President Obama is, in fact, not George W. Bush. The latter qualification seems to have been a determinative characteristic shared by recent recipients, Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

2. SECOND PLACE: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Mah man,” as he’s affectionately known by his homies, finished a close second for several reasons. No one can deny his outreach to the Muslim community or his compelling commitment to democratic elections. He also has worked tirelessly to remove the unfair stigma that Germans carry for their efforts to achieve zero population growth back in the late 1930s through the mid-1940s. In addition, he is dedicated to alternative fuels and the possibility of using them to reshape the Middle East (particularly with regard to Israel’s general landscape). Given this record, it is easy to see why he was the committee’s second choice.

3. THIRD PLACE: Premier Kim Yong-il. Premier Yong (who is apparently “ill”) ran a strong third on two counts. First, he didn’t blow up any neighboring countries (this is always considered a “positive” in the deliberation of awarding the Peace Prize). Second, he demonstrated great humanitarianism by releasing those two hostile, subversive reporters who stepped over the imaginary line that separates countries (but, hey, it does show up on maps … so, they should have known better). Personally, I reserve some degree of doubt that these young women were really spies because they work for former Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore. Then again, Premier Yung-il wouldn’t have detained them unless he believed in his heart that they posed a serious and imminent threat to his country.

4. FOURTH PLACE: Commander in Chief and Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, Muammar al-Qaddafi. Who can forget his unusual speaking skills and penchant for organizing his thoughts in a unique way as demonstrated by his recent speech at the United Nations? His call for equality among all nations is clearly a call for peace. His appeal to distribute voting power uniformly among U.N. Members while redistributing the wealth (i.e., having wealthier countries carry a disproportionate burden with regard to providing money and resources) is reminiscent of the winner himself. Beyond that, he has exhibited an exceptional lack of hubris as manifest by his reticence to promote his rank beyond that of Colonel (although he does tend to “sport” a lot of fake military decorations when he’s not wearing his snappy robe). Why, the man doesn’t even use the expected “U” after the “Q” in his surname for fear that it would be interpreted in the “text” sense of “You” and thereby draw further unwanted attention to him. Now, that’s humility at its finest!

5. FIFTH PLACE: Rodney King. Who can forget his memorable quote, “Why can’t we all just get along?” Frankly, this may be one of the most concise commitments to world peace that has ever been uttered. It goes directly to the core. “Why can’t we all just get along?” Need more be said? For simplicity and eloquence, he has my vote.

Given the talent I was up against, I guess I should curb my disappointment.

I can understand why George W. Bush wouldn’t be considered for trying to remove tyranny, stopping genocide, and reducing AIDS in Africa … after all, he’s George W. Bush. I do think Ronald Reagan deserved consideration during his lifetime given the fact that he actually did negotiate a nuclear non-proliferation agreement and was successful in his quest to have the Berlin Wall torn down … but then again, he wasn’t into social reengineering.

The person I most feel sorry for is Bill Clinton. I mean, how must he feel? President Obama is only in office 12 days before receiving a nomination, yet Bill Clinton remains unrecognized. It must really gall him to know that even Al Gore won the award before him. We can only hope it will be co-awarded to Hillary and him someday in the future (so as not to create any marital disharmony within that idyllic union).

Yes, I feel better now. I no longer feel that I was unjustly forsaken. If I ever do win the Nobel Peace Prize, rest assured, I will be “surprised and deeply humbled” like President Obama. In fact, I think I will donate the monetary award to a veterans’ group since, realistically, they have taken more risk and contributed more directly to world peace than my rhetoric ever will.

Wish me luck next year … and please, someone, place my name in nomination.

*****

2009 © Dr. T.J. O'Hara

“These are the times that try men’s souls.”

Thomas Paine wrote those words in The Crisis; a collection of articles he created in 1776. In that very same year and on this very day (January 10th), he wrote a 50-page, politically-charged pamphlet entitled, Common Sense.

Given that the quote still seems particularly applicable, it would seem that the title of his pamphlet, Common Sense, has yet to catch on in Washington, D.C. We’ve already witnessed a $2 million acceptance ceremony; Senators and Congressmen have continued the tradition of hosting parties (at taxpayers’ expense) to kick off their new terms, and we are about to foot the bill for a $10 million inauguration … all in the middle of an economic crisis.

When do you think we will begin to elect individuals who exhibit true leadership … and, most of all, “common sense?”

2009 © Dr. T.J. O’Hara