Why the Rest of the Candidates Should Follow Pawlenty’s Lead!

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 23, 2011 – With the plethora of candidates running for the Office of President, you almost need a scorecard to tell who’s who.  Stuck with their Party Platforms, they almost all sound the same.  Where’s the breakaway leadership we need?

Perhaps, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty has found the way.  He quit!  Why can’t more presidential candidates follow his lead?  In fact, why don’t they all follow his lead … for the good of the country?

Former Gov. Pawlenty was the perfect candidate.  He is a likeable guy, and he ineffectively spent an enormous sum of money on his Iowa Straw Poll campaign that garnered only 2,293 votes.  Rumor has it that he spent in the range of $1.5 million.  That’s just under $655 per vote.  Given that ratio, he’d only need about a $42 billion war chest to capture a narrow victory in 2012.

Okay, maybe he was correct in his decision to drop out.

However, mathematics never was the strong suit of political candidates.  So, it’s tough to come down too hard on former Gov. Pawlenty and suggest that only he should have stepped down.

Fox News broadcast its own version of reality television last week when it hosted what passed for a Republican Political Debate.  It was within the context of that debate that stimulated the thought that perhaps all of the Republican candidates should withdraw from the Presidential Race.

Bret Baier asked the following question:

“Well, I’m going to ask a question to everyone here on the stage.  Say you had a deal … a real spendings (sic) cuts deal, ten to one as Byron (York) said (in a previous question) spendings (sic) cuts to tax increases.  Mr. Speaker (Gingrich), you’re already shaking your head.  But who on this stage would walk away from that deal?  Will you raise your hand if you feel so strongly about not raising taxes you’d walk away on the ten to one deal?”

All of the presidential candidates on the stage, former Gov. Rick Santorum, Mr. Herman Cain, Rep. Ron Paul, former Gov. Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Gov. Jon Huntsman, and former Speaker Newt Gingrich, raised their hands; although, in fairness, Mr. Cain seemed to be initially reluctant.

Perhaps, Mr. Cain’s reluctance was predicated upon the fact that he doesn’t sport a prior or existing government title.  So, there’s a chance he has some common sense and can actually “do the math.”  Unfortunately, he may have been a victim of peer pressure with respect to this question, but he caved just the same.

Just for fun, let’s do the math.  A 10:1 spending cut to tax increase deal would work like this.  Doing a little algebra (assuming it’s still taught in our public schools), let’s make X equal to the tax increase.  Therefore, the spending cuts have to equal 10X.  If we want to wipe out the entire $14.5 trillion in debt, the equation would be 11X equals $14.5 trillion.  Solving for X, we’d be accepting a tax increase of $1.319 trillion in return for a spending cut of $13.19 trillion.  The result:  the complete elimination of our National Debt (which is really not even remotely required) and a return of our AAA rating and happy days for everyone!

Can we really achieve this type of cost reduction immediately?  No!  However, that wasn’t Mr. Baier’s question.  The question was essentially whether the candidates would even consider it.

President Obama even mentioned the 10:1 deal at his town hall-type meeting in Cannon Falls, Minnesota, on Monday.  In reference to the Republican candidates’ rejection of the theoretical deal and an apparent endorsement of this column, the President said, “Think about that.  I mean, that’s just not common sense.”

Think about it indeed!  It would be a sweetheart of a deal if it were spread over a relatively short period of time (say, five years).  The reality is that marginal tax rates might not even have to be increased given the loopholes that could be eliminated in the 72,000+ pages of tax code if the loopholes were to be considered first.  In the alternative, even if increases in the tax rates were required, they wouldn’t need to be permanent since the National Debt would have been so radically reduced.

Why would all of the Republican candidates summarily reject the idea?  Why would any rational candidate reject it completely?  The again, perhaps that explains it.

The raising of hands was little more than a symbolic expression of “solidarity” designed to assuage those strident supporters who demand form over substance.  As a result, we should ask all of the Republican candidates to drop out of the Presidential Race.  Given the likelihood that Gov. Rick Perry would have raised his hand as well, let’s just save time and ask him to drop out as well.

Moving right along, it’s time to address the Democratic side of the coin.

While fringe elements of the Democratic Party might float a primary challenger to President Obama, the Party itself will continue to “dance with the date that brought them to the Prom” as the saying goes. That’s too bad!

If the Democratic Party really cared about America’s middle-class, it would run someone who could demonstrate at least a modicum of empathy for those people … without the assistance of a TelePrompTer.

This is a President who either didn’t have the leadership skills or the financial acumen to understand the necessity to address the issue of our National Debt before it became a true crisis.  His proposed budget was shot down by a vote of 97-0 in the Senate, and he was missing-in-action relative to the debt ceiling debate until it was entirely too late.  The fact that his specific personal recommendations could best be represented by a blank piece of paper speaks volumes.

Now that the President has chosen to pass the buck to a “super committee” (which former Speaker Newt Gingrich accurately described as “the dumbest idea Washington has come up with in my  lifetime”), his leadership choices have been interesting.  The President has played golf, gone on a 10-day vacation in Martha’s Vineyard, and now is traveling around the country on a bus tour to talk about his economic successes … seriously!

Press Secretary Carney came to the President’s defense last week when reporters challenged the President’s course of action particularly with respect to his decision to go on vacation.  “I don't think Americans out there would begrudge that (sic) notion that the President would spend some time with his family,” Press Secretary Carney said.

Of course, Press Secretary Carney is correct … because the President is in a class by himself.

Do you remember that little oil spill we experienced in the Gulf of Mexico last year?  The White House excoriated British Petroleum’s then CEO, Tony Hayward, for having gone to a yacht race with his son.  Then-Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel called Mr. Hayward’s choice “part of a long line of PR gaffes and mistakes.”

During that same time in which our Nation was suffering from the disaster the Gulf, President Obama was criticized about his concurrent decision to, once again, play golf.

Deputy Press Secretary, Bill Burton, said that the President had a right to decompress a bit after a hard week.  "I don't think that there's a person in this country that doesn't think that their President ought to have a little time to clear his mind … I think that a little time to himself on Father's Day weekend probably does us all good as American citizens," Burton explained.

When the President decides to recreate, it’s apparently in all of our best interests.  When other leaders do it, it’s patently wrong.  Welcome to the new caste system … just when you thought we no longer were ruled by the equivalent of a monarchy.

That’s why President Obama should declare that he is dropping out of the 2012 Presidential Race.  He wouldn’t have to waste any more time on campaign junkets such as his recent bus tour, and his staff wouldn’t have to struggle to frame such political boondoggles as actually being related to the Nation’s business.  The President could just concentrate on doing his job until the end of his term.  Then, he could use all of his time going forward to “clear his mind.”

Yes, Gov. Pawlenty may have had the right idea.  We might be best served is every candidate would drop out of the Presidential Race.  It might open the way for new strategies and new leadership to surface; a candidate would who cares more about the country than he or she does about the prestige of the position; a candidate with common sense.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is an executive consultant, political media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on August 25^th on 1170 AM, , San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT).  Listen live via the Internet at www.KCBQ.com.

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities at The Washington Times.

***** 

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made

Another Committee ... But This One is "Super"

RANCHO SANTA FE, Ca., August 23, 2011 – You’ve just got to be excited!  A “super committee” has been formed to save the day.  The “Terrific Twelve” are now in place.  It almost sounds like a summer movie of some kind.

Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid took action first (which is a story in itself).  He selected Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), who was named as co-chair, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT) and Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rounded out the Senate’s members by adding Senators John Kyl (R-AZ), Rob Portman (R-OH) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) to the committee.

Then, Speaker of the House John Boehner named Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) as co-chair, along with Rep. David Camp (R-MI) and Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI).

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi put the finishing touches on the committee by choosing Representatives Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Xavier Becerra (D-CA) and Chris Van Hollen, Jr. (D-MD) to represent interests.

Together, they form the august (no pun intended) Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction.

The “super committee,” as it’s called, is tasked with a super challenge:  to go where no politician has gone before … at least in recent years; i.e., to act in the best interests of the People in a demonstration of common sense and bipartisan accord.

The baseline goal of the super committee is relatively simple:  find a minimum of $1.5 trillion in additional budgetary savings that can be claimed over the next 10 years.   That would be added to the $2.1 trillion that was identified in the interim plan entered into on August 2nd to raise the total to $3.6 trillion.

Keep in mind that the credit rating agencies warned the United States that a possible downgrade might occur if a “meaningful” debt resolution wasn’t met, and by “meaningful,” they stated that a debt reduction plan in the range of $4+ trillion would be required.

For those of you who took math when it was still being taught in our public schools, you undoubtedly recognize that $3.6 trillion is less than $4 trillion.  Do not be alarmed!  The United States’ crediting rating will remain “AAA.”  When the Administration was queried about the possibility of a downgrade, no less of an authority than our own Secretary of Treasury, Timothy “TurboTax” Geithner, pronounced that there is “No risk of that.”  Oops!

Luckily, on the third day of the downgrade the President arose from the Fed.  He told us, “Markets will rise and fall, but this is the United States of America.  No matter what some agency may say, we've always been and always will be a AAA country.”   Having been reassured by the President’s version of “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me,” you can just ignore any impact you may experience as a result of the downgrade.  It’s all good!

Following the President’s words of encouragement, the stock market went into a meltdown … much like Al Gore.  Come to think of it, maybe the economic meltdown is really being caused by global warming.

Of course, there’s a better answer than that.  Senator Kerry clarified the situation.  “I believe this is, without question, the Tea Party downgrade,” he said. “This is the Tea Party downgrade because a minority of people in the House of Representatives countered the will of even many Republicans in the United States Senate who were prepared to do a bigger deal, to do $4.7 trillion dollars, $4 trillion dollars, have a mix of reductions and reforms in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, but also recognize that we needed to do some revenue.”

Senator Kerry went on to say, “What we need is a Washington that stops this bickering.  Let’s get rid of these hard positions that I noticed even in Speaker Boehner’s comments about the downgrade, politicizing it in a sense, sort of blaming it on the Democrats and the lack of the decisions … Barack Obama put a $4.7 trillion deal on the table. Three times he was refused that deal (which almost sounds biblical) because there were some people in the Republican Party, and Mitch McConnell even admitted this, who wanted to default.  He said there were some people in his Party who were willing to shoot the hostage.  In the end, they found out that the hostage was worth ransoming.”

This is obviously a demonstration of President Obama’s January plea for more political civility in the aftermath of the Rep. Gabrielle Gifford’s shooting, during which he said, “only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation … Rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame, let us use this occasion to expand our moral imaginations, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instincts for empathy, and remind ourselves of all the ways our hopes and dreams are bound together.”

It all bodes well for the bipartisan accord element of the super committee’s objective.  Speaking of which, some of the super committee selections were interesting. 

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), one of the co-chairs of the super committee, is the second-ranking Democrat on the Budget Committee and a long-time member of the Appropriations Committee, which is a good background.  She also happens to be chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in which her role is to make sure that the Democrats retain control of the Senate in 2012.

Senator John Kyl (R-AZ) also has a good background as he sits on  the Committee on Finance and is the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight as well as sitting on the Subcommittees on Health Care and Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy (among others).  However, he is viewed as the 4th most conservative Republican and is most famous for having claimed that abortion is “well over 90% of what does Planned Parenthood” (when the figure is closer to 3%).  Later, he explained that his comment was “not intended to be a factual statement.”  On the plus side, he’s retiring in 2013.

There are other members of the super committee whose political biases and faux pas are equally troublesome, but there is no need to bore you with the details.

However, let’s focus on the positive.  Most of the members sit on appropriate committees and subcommittees that expose them to the tax code and budgetary process.  While it may appear to be a leap of faith given the Hill’s most recent history, let’s pray that the members of the super committee will embrace the fact that their responsibility to the People surpasses their commitment to their respective Parties.

In the world of turnarounds, this really isn’t a particularly challenging problem.  The entity (in this case the United States) has created an infrastructure that cannot be presently supported by its revenue stream.

Step #1:  Reduce costs.  Eliminate any non-essential programs, personnel, etc. that threaten the long-term viability of the government.  Look internally first because it’s the area you can most readily control.

Step #2:  Restructure necessary elements to operate more cost-effectively and efficiently.  Eliminate redundancies, automate systems, reduce bureaucratic policies and procedures that slow down decision-making (particularly as it pertains to those “not so shovel-ready” jobs that the President admitted were delayed by needless levels of approval), etc.

Step #3:  Consider strategies that will increase revenue.  Republicans and members of the TEA Party, this means that you shouldn’t ignore the possibility of exploring strategies that will improve cash flow in a manner that will allow you to reduce debt.  Democrats, this means that any associated revenues should be used to reduce debt rather than to fund new social programs that will otherwise expand it.

Unlike private sector businesses that have to earn revenue, the government has the power to ordain it.  With that power goes much responsibility.  If you truly believe that “all men are created equal,” now is the time to recognize that it is wrong to place the burden of the debt, which you as our elected officials created, on the backs of the middle-class … or on the backs of the wealthy.  This is an opportunity to revise the tax code in a meaningful way that allows all Americans to share in the cost of freedom to the degree that they can.  It is an opportunity to bring Americans together rather than to further tear them apart.

Sure, you’ll have to eliminate the loopholes you have created to curry political favor, but recognize that your responsibility is to the People … not to feathering your own nest or that of your Party.

If you take this step seriously, you may actually find that everyone could experience a rate reduction on a percentage basis.  The rhetoric about the inequity of “hedge fund managers paying a lower percentage than their secretaries” will go away if you eliminate tax loopholes that were created to attract campaign contributions and political support.

The original tax code was 400 pages.  Today’s code tips the scales in excess of 72,000 pages.  To put that into perspective, the Constitution of the United States of America, which forms the basis of the entire federal government, is six pages (including a page for its Letter of Transmittal and one for the Bill of Rights).  Stop playing the class-warfare card and fix the problem that you created.

Step #4:  Tell the truth.  If a particular “entitlement” program is going to go bankrupt without intervention, tell us.  We can handle it.  Then, fix the problem in an equitable way.  Stop trying to gain a political advantage by claiming that one Party is hiding in a room trying to figure out how to create an unfair tax advantage for their particular constituency and, during the course of the discussion, decides to kill seniors or deprive aid to the disabled.  Correspondingly, don’t tell us that the other Party is plotting the overthrow of the United States government because of their fervent belief that Communism will actually work somewhere … someday.

If you truly believe that we all possess “certain unalienable rights” and “that included among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” then you know that we are not guaranteed happiness; we are only promised an equal opportunity to pursue it.  Don’t use the term “entitlement” for political gain.  We are entitled to the fruits of our labor.  We are entitled to a fulfillment of the promises you have made when you unilaterally determined what we should pay in taxes and to what purposes those funds should be used.

Step #5:  Call me.  I am tired of hearing who is to blame.  I am tired of hearing that you need a committee.  I am tired of hearing that nothing can take effect until after the next election.  Call me, and I’ll help you fix the problem.

If I have to do the President’s job, I will bill you at the President’s rate:  $1,095.89 per day plus expenses.  You can keep the house and the private jet.  I’ll have earned the money and will gladly pay my fair share of taxes on it.  That should make everybody happy.  As the President said in his address of the downgrade, “Making these reforms doesn't require any radical steps. What it does require is common sense …”  So, pick up the phone.  I can be there tomorrow.  It’s time to get America back on track.

Seriously!  Why should we believe that a “super committee,” mostly comprised of Party zealots, will be more successful than their counterparts in Congress?  More importantly, why have we known about the problem for several years and yet are just beginning to take action?  If there ever has been a time to disband Party politics, it’s now.  It’s time to introduce Washington to “common sense.”

*****

T.J. O’Hara is an executive consultant, political media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on August 25^th on 1170 AM, , San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT).  Listen live via the Internet at www.KCBQ.com.

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities at The Washington Times.

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Happy Birthday, Mr. President (sung to the tune of Money, Money, Money, Money)

SAN DIEGO, Ca., August 4, 2011 – After flying to Chicago on Air Force One to celebrate his 50th birthday and attend a few fund-raisers, President Obama was greeted by Jennifer Hudson’s obligatory reprise of Marilyn Monroe’s “Happy Birthday, Mr. President.”  Then, the festivities and the cash began to flow.

“It’s his birthday and he’ll whine if he wants to...” there are just so many lyrics that fit the merriment.  Who could criticize the President for succumbing to the temptation of capping off a perfect evening by blaming his political opponents for something?

President Obama wrote a book called The Audacity of Hope.  The title expressed what many of us saw in him:  a fresh, new face in American politics; a tall, athletic-looking man with a supportive wife and two beautiful children; and a spirited voice of optimism.  He offered the promise of “hope and change.”  Unfortunately, his presidency has delivered “more of the same” in the form of traditional politics.  If he ever considers writing a sequel, it might well be titled “The Audacity of Blame.”

On July 21st, this column predicted that the debt ceiling crisis would be resolved on August 2nd because traditional politics demanded it; not because of the Hill’s commitment to doing what’s best for the country … but because August 4th was the President’s 50th birthday and major fund-raisers had already been scheduled for August 3rd.  Serious money was at risk … campaign money.

The rough estimates are in and the “take” from the shindig in Chicago was approximately $3.65 million (not counting the seven other fund-raising events and 1000 or so additional organizational parties that were hosted in his honor around the country).

Now, we can’t be sure how much the President raised last year when he dined alone with Oprah Winfrey before attending birthday fund-raisers the next day (his family was vacationing in Spain), but we do know that the price of the tickets went up.  Last year’s top-end party, hosted by Chicago billionaire and real estate mogul Neil Bluhm, cost $30,400 to attend.  This year’s event tipped the scales at $35,800 for the political cognoscenti who could afford to attend.  If you do the math, that’s a 17.76% increase year-over-year. 

One explanation might be found within the regulations of the Federal Election Commission.  The FEC permits campaign donation limits to be adjusted each year by the rate of inflation.

However, that can’t be the answer since we’re officially told that we are experiencing a minimum level of inflation (assuming that you agree with the Administration’s position that the price of food, clothing and fuel shouldn’t enter into the calculation of inflation because they’re “too volatile”).  Perhaps the increase of 17.76 percent was just a subliminal manifestation of patriotism at its finest.

However, let’s not quibble over price.  After all, what’s $35,800 to the average middle-class American?  So, let’s delve into the celebration itself.

In the spirit of the evening and before the private part of the gala began, President Obama took the opportunity to rally his minions.  “I hope we can avoid another self-inflicted wound like we just saw over the last couple of weeks.  Because we don’t have time to play these partisan games.  We’ve got too much work to do ... It is going to continue to be challenging every step of the way,” the President said.

It’s interesting that he is distancing himself from the debt ceiling debacle as if he didn’t play a role … or as if it didn’t constitute “work” just because it wasn’t directly related to campaigning.  Some might argue that the President failed to demonstrate appropriate leadership when he chose to wait until the last moment to engage Congress on the potentially cataclysmic problem of which everyone had been aware for more than a year.  Then again, any earlier engagement might have interfered with the 36 prior fund-raising events he attended in recent months.  As it was, he had to cancel planned appearances at about a half-dozen fund-raising events just over the three weeks that he chose to become personally involved in resolving the issue.

It is also interesting to note that, while they remain his primary target, President Obama is no longer restricting his reprimands to the Republican Party and its splintered TEA Party associates.  He has subtly begun to allude to the more radical elements of his own Party when he comments about partisan politics.  The question remains as to whether the more extreme faction of the Democratic Party will tolerate his thinly-veiled version of a public rebuke.

It is one thing for the President to position the entire conservative movement as wicked and obstinate, but it is far more tenuous for him to throw his major fund-raising constituency under the bus.  Will those members of his base accept this tactic as a necessary evil that will allow him to retain support among moderates, or will they rebel against his self-serving abandonment of their position?  Only time will tell.

In one of the more intellectually amusing moments of the evening, President Obama shared his thinking with respect to the issue of taxes.  “What they want to know is our campaign stands for a fair, just approach to the tax code that says everybody has to chip in.  And it’s not right if a hedge fund manager is being taxed at a lower rate than his or her secretary. That’s a values issue,” the President said … with a straight-face … to a room full of hedge fund managers and others of similar wealth.

He also probably didn’t mean to insinuate that “everybody has to chip in.”  Otherwise, the 47 percent of American households that presently do not pay taxes might be in for a rude awakening.  It almost certainly was just a figure of speech.

During the private dinner that followed the concert, President Obama went on to say, “I think this episode was just a severe example of what's been going on for quite some time and it’s part of what led me to run for President.  It’s part of the reason why, hopefully, all of you are here tonight, because you recognize we still got some more work to do.”  Accordingly, why haven’t we seen more of the “change” we were promised?  Why is it still “business as usual” in Washington, D.C.?

Where is the transparency we were promised?  Where is the accountability?  Where is the bipartisan accord?

Of course, it’s difficult to establish the latter when “blame” seems to be the central premise of the current Administration.

For the first two years, the failed Bush Administration was blamed for virtually everything (many times, deservingly so).  However, this strategy disregarded the fact that the both the House and the Senate were Democratically-controlled during the final two years of President Bush’s second term (the 110th Congress) and that both chambers continued to be ruled by an overwhelming Democratic majority during President Obama’s first two years (the 111th Congress).  Could there be some joint culpability involved in our nation’s challenges or should we simply ignore the obvious?

Luckily, just as Bush-bashing was beginning to lose steam, the Democratic Party lost control of the House.  This allowed the President to shift the blame to House Republicans and their cohorts in crime, the TEA Party.  Again, just ignore the fact that the Democratically-controlled Senate has effectively become a legislative black hole into which almost everything disappears … usually without debate.  There is no such thing as joint liability on the Hill.

The same proverbial coat of Teflon should be applied to the President.  Of course, if he really wants to be the “adult in the room,” he needs to accept responsibility and demonstrate more leadership.  In that regard, let’s review an excerpt from The National Platform of Common Sense that addresses leadership.

“In keeping with the current direction of our country and out of respect for the amount of debt we owe to China, I thought I would quote Lao Tse (in Tao Te Ching):

“‘The superior leader gets things done with very little motion.  He imparts instruction not through many words but through a few deeds.  He keeps informed about everything but interferes hardly at all.  He is a catalyst, and though things would not get done well if he weren't there, when they succeed he takes no credit.  And because he takes no credit, credit never leaves him.’

“All kidding aside, that’s a pretty profound description of leadership and one from which the “leaders” in our Executive and Legislative Branches would greatly benefit if they took heed.  Compare and contrast that to their more predominant tendencies toward chest-thumping, credit-stealing, blame-shirking, and behavior-shifting.  Am I the only one who’s troubled by the “star” status that appears to be so desperately sought by our “leaders?”

“I’d be more comfortable calling most of the members of the Executive and Legislative Branches of our government “celebrities” rather than “leaders.”  I think that would help the general public see them more clearly.  After all, while we may misguidedly idolize “celebrities” for the roles or games they might play, we intuitively recognize that their importance is somewhat in­flated and that their contribution to the world is one of entertainment.”

Think about that.  Leadership isn’t about taking credit.  It also isn’t about assigning blame.  It’s about taking responsibility and taking action.  There isn’t a “celebrity” status associated with it.

Having worked primarily in the world of corporate turnarounds for 30 years, there was one recurring theme:  when you agreed to take over, all of the problems became yours. 

You needed to demonstrate leadership by assuming responsibility for the facts as they existed when you took control.  It did not matter how those circumstances came into effect or who contributed to their creation.  It only mattered that you provided the leadership necessary to recover from the past and to establish an environment that fostered the opportunity for a better future.

With the 2012 election looming ever more near and “The Audacity of Hope” nothing more than a distant memory, it’s time to stop “The Audacity of Blame” and start leading the country, Mr. President.  If you don’t, someone else will.

 

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on August 8^th, 9^th and 10^th on 1170 AM, , San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT).  Listen live via the Internet at www.KCBQ.com.

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities at The Washington Times.

***** 

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.

Washington, D.C. – The City of Compromise

SAN DIEGO, Ca., July 31, 2011 – In the world of politics, nothing is more serious that big money.  As a result, with his birthday fund-raisers being threatened by the debt ceiling impasse, it was time for the President to take bold and decisive action.  There was little alternative: it was time to call a press conference.

In his address to the Nation, President Obama eloquently said, “The American people may have voted for divided government, but they didn’t vote for a dysfunctional government.  So I’m asking you all to make your voice heard.  If you want a balanced approach to reducing the deficit, let your member of Congress know.  If you believe we can solve this problem through compromise, send that message.”   There are a lot of double entendres in those four sentences!

Did the American people vote for a “divided government?”

In the Clintonian sense, it depends on what the definition of “divided” is.  According to Webster’s Dictionary, the primary definition of “divided” is “separated into parts or pieces.”  It would seem that the Constitution already accomplished that in its first three Articles.

Perhaps the President was referring to the fact that the voters “divided” Congressional control between the two major Parties (giving control of the House to the Republicans and allowing control of the Senate to remain with the Democrats).  It’s hard to conceive of why the electorate would break up the Democratic “monopoly” given how successful it had been, but then, they did the same thing during the Bush Administration’s stellar years.  We can only hope that it didn’t have anything to do with the lack of establishing a budget.

Then again, “divided” also is defined as “disagreeing with each other” or “directed or moved toward conflicting goals.”  That can’t be the answer because we already had that in place without voting for any change.  Besides, isn’t that really the same thing as a “dysfunctional government?”

There’s one way to find out.  Let’s look up “dysfunctional.”

Well, that isn’t any help!  It just shows a picture of both Chambers of Congress with the President standing in the middle.

At least we could all understand the President’s plea “to make your voice heard,” and many people apparently did … on both sides of the issue.  This was rather unfortunate as the President really only wanted citizens who agreed with his position to make their voices heard.   When will we ever learn to listen?

President Obama also called for “a balanced approach to reducing the deficit.”  While the national debt and budget deficit are two distinctly different things, let’s not quibble over it.  As the President said, “I won’t bore you with the details.”

The phrase, “a balanced approach,” might be defined as “an equipoise between contrasting solutions” … but let’s hope not.  Otherwise, we’d have to look up “equipoise!”

Actually, “a balanced approach” sounds quite appealing.  It also suggests that the other Party’s alternative is “imbalanced,” which is always a good ploy in the world of politics.

To drive a few more nails into that coffin, always try to claim that the other side is trying to “ask a senior citizen to pay more for her Medicare before (it) ask(s) a corporate jet owner or the oil companies to give up tax breaks that other companies don’t get.”  Then, tack on a comment about how they’d rather “ask a student to pay more for college before (they) ask hedge fund managers to stop paying taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries?” 

There’s no penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct, so throw in as many groups and social issues as you can to attract an emotional response.  It’s always better to have voters thinking emotionally than it is to have them thinking rationally.

Of course, you can always count on an equally misleading response from the other side.  Again, be sure to establish your emotional base as Speaker Boehner did:  “I want you to know I made a sincere effort to work with the President to identify a path forward.”

Then, use “balance” in the name of your Party’s proposal to offset the President’s use of the term (as in Cut, Cap and Balance).

Caveat: if you’re a Republican, don’t try to inject humor.  It just isn’t within your nature.  Avoid saying things like, “(Here’s what we got …) a ‘stimulus’ bill that was more effective in producing material for late-night comedians than it was in producing jobs.”  Besides, it’s tough enough to get a laugh under normal circumstances.  It’s even worse when there isn’t an audience present.

Were there opportunities to inject a more clever repartee?  Of course there were.  Imagine how entertaining it would have been had the Speaker been quick on his feet and not committed to delivering a carefully prepared speech.

President Obama deftly wove the following into his speech:  “Would you rather reduce deficits and interest rates by raising revenue from those who are not now paying their fair share, or would you rather accept larger budget deficits, higher interest rates, and higher unemployment?  And I think I know your answer.”  Then, he added, “Those words were spoken by Ronald Reagan.”

There’s almost no way for a Republican to trump a Democrat who plays the “Reagan card” … except in this instance.

Imagine how much fun it would have been had Speaker Boehner said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure.  It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills.  It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies.  Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally.  Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here.’  Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren.  America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better” … and then added, “Those words were spoken by then-Senator Barack Obama.”

It would have been the equivalent of a political bar fight!

To give the two Party leaders a little credit, they did seem to agree on a few points.  They both concluded their remarks by asking God to bless us and to bless America.  Additionally, the President said, “For the last decade, we’ve spent more money than we take in,” and the Speaker said, “The solution to this crisis is not complicated: if you're spending more money than you're taking in, you need to spend less of it.”  When the two Parties can at least agree on the root cause, there may be an opportunity to fix the problem.

That’s where “compromise” comes into the equation.  “Compromise” can be defined as “a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions to combine qualities or elements of their respective positions.”

The President appropriately has called for compromise.  He just happened to use the rest of the 2,302 words of his address to castigate Republicans for being obstinate, which is always a great strategy … unless you’re trying to elicit compromise.

Then again, a number of Republicans have been obstinate and have negatively influenced the opportunity for compromise.  They have truculently refused to consider any plan that includes a tax increase. 

Of course, a number of Democrats have been obstinate as well.  They have refused to consider any plan that doesn’t include a tax increase for the rich.

That’s what killed last Sunday’s near-settlement.  The Parties had essentially struck a deal when the President decided to add $400 billion in taxes to the compromise agreement. Oops!

Generally speaking, the President abandoned his 2008 campaign promise of creating bipartisan support in deference to what seems to have become the driving force of his 2012 re-election campaign:   the political homonym of “buy partisan support.”  He just isn’t willing to risk losing his base.

Still, you’ve got to give him high marks for chutzpah.  He has appeared on national television several times this week and ignored the fact that compromise requires both sides to participate.  The Senate has tabled a bill without debate; it has declared other prospective bills to be “dead on arrival;” and even the President himself has declared that he will veto any bill that doesn’t push the problem to a date that won’t interfere with his bid for re-election.

One has to wonder why an interim solution is not even worthy of consideration … unless it is a concession to the fact that our leadership in Washington, D.C. will inevitably wait until the eleventh hour to address it … just like they did this time.  It’s not as if they weren’t aware of the pending debt ceiling crisis.  Our “leaders” apparently like to stand on the railroad track while a train speeds toward them just to see who will jump first.

In real life, epitaphs are written for those who are so foolish.  In the political world, they just get re-elected for “standing firmly” on their principles.  Not surprisingly, the cycle then repeats itself.

Interestingly enough, the bill that did pass the House contained a Balanced Budget amendment.  While the Senate tabled it without a debate (much less a vote), the President already announced that he would veto it.  It was argued (among other things) that a Balanced Budget amendment would be too hard to pass.

The reason I raise this is because 22 USC 286 authorized the United States to accept membership in the International Monetary Fund.  Then, in 1978, Public Law 95-435 was passed to amend 22 USC 286.  Tucked away in Section 7 of Public Law 95-435 is the following condition:  “Beginning with fiscal year 1981, the total budget outlays of the Federal Government shall not exceed its receipts.”

Hmmm … that almost seems like a requirement to balance the Federal budget.  Then again, we’ve ignored it since 1978.   So, why should we begin to impose it now?

We can all rest at ease because a compromise will come.  After all, Washington, D.C. is all about compromise.  As a verb, “compromise” can also be defined as an “act that exposes or makes one (or another) liable to danger, suspicion, or disrepute.”  That’s almost the definition of life on the Hill.

Many of our politicians compromise in this regard all the time.  They compromise their principles; they get caught in compromising situations; and they compromise the citizens they represent if money or votes are at stake.

In fact, the D.C. in Washington, D.C. might as well stand for District of Compromise.  With the money that’s in play with the President’s birthday fund-raising events, you can rest assured that a compromise will be reached.  The debt ceiling will be resolved just in the nick of time and in a way that forestalls any direct action until after the next election.  It’s just the spirit of compromise!

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  To Order Books, go to: http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

T.J. will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on August 8^th, 9^th and 10^th on 1170 AM, , San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM (PDT).  Listen live via the Internet at www.KCBQ.com.

Website:                      www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

Facebook Fan Page:  http://tinyurl.com/2dlwum7

Tweet the Czar:          @TCSCzar

Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in The Communities at The Washington Times.

*****

Copyright © 2011 T.J. O’Hara. To support viral distribution, this article may be copied, reprinted, forwarded, linked, or published in any form as long as proper attribution is given to the author and no changes are made.