Health Care Reform

Sorry that it’s taken so long to return to writing. I’ve been standing all alone in a field … trying to learn patience and how to suppress feelings of frustration when the world doesn’t seem to be listening. I figure these skills will become a virtue now that the Health Care Reform Bill has passed.

Speaking of which, I’m pretty excited. Health Care Reform is the most significant legislation of our time. I have it on good authority. Nancy Pelosi said so!

I do think it is a brilliantly crafted piece of legislation. Sure, some people may be concerned about a 2,700+ page bill that impacts one-sixth of our Nation’s economy, constructed by individuals who have little to no background in health care (other than having gone to the doctor on occasion), but I think I know why President Obama pushed so hard to accomplish this in his first year on the throne … uh … I mean, in office! In one single act, he affected a “course correction” for health care, Social Security, population control, the environment, economic recovery, unemployment, immigration, government reform, and the list goes on. Let me explain.

The impact on health care is obvious. We all know that fat-laden meats such as ham and bacon can promote arterial sclerosis and may also have carcinogenic components; and that heart disease and cancer are the top two causes of death in the United States. Well, the new Health Care Reform Bill has so much pork in it that we can assume that the supply available to the general public has been reduced significantly. Score one point for an almost immediate improvement in health. But wait, there’s more!

Now that everyone gets health insurance (or gets fined for not having it … or for having too much), we will have increased patient demand without having increased the supply of health care professionals. Okay, I know what you’re thinking: when demand exceeds supply, costs naturally rise. To overcome that, we’ll just have to pass legislation that caps medical fees. In turn, I’m sure that will encourage a greater number of individuals to invest twelve years of their lives to attend college and med school (plus residency) and sacrifice time with their families every year thereafter, so that they can become firmly entrenched in Middle America as their economic reward. Better yet, maybe we can restrict their incomes to a point where they need to accept welfare. This will make them better physicians as they will have more empathy for the plight of the poor. In the event this doesn’t work, we can all just learn to practice patience (remember me in the field?) as we wait inordinately long periods of time to see a physician or get treatment.

Even this latter scenario creates advantages. Without prompt treatment, a certain percentage of our senior citizens will die more prematurely than might otherwise be necessary. If the number is significant enough, Social Security may be saved since we won’t have as many old people collecting benefits. If this isn’t enough, our Congressional leaders can create the SGA (Soylent Green Agency) to decide how aggressively we should provide medical treatment for this segment of our population.

We can even work the other end by funding public abortions. No, I don’t mean Congress … I mean “public abortions” in the tradition sense! This will teach our young adults to further abandon any sense of responsibility for their actions which, in turn, will prepare them to lower their aspirations more in alignment with the long-term goal of establishing a society that rewards mediocrity (think “big labor” on a national scale). There’s even an environmental impact: the fewer the people … the lesser the carbon footprint. This is change that Al Gore can believe in.

Here’s another benefit. If you can’t afford health care or can’t seem to get it when you need it, you only have one alternative: take better care of yourself! Eat healthy and exercise regularly … it’s your only option. By reforming health care in a way that may render it non-functional, the President may have created the necessary incentive to recapture our health at the individual level. How cool is that?

The new Health Care Reform Bill is projected to cost less than $1 trillion dollars. Given the current Administration’s proclivity for spending, this is quite a deal. Even if this estimate is on the low side, it means approximately $1 trillion will be plowed back into the economy. That’s got to cause job creation which, in turn, will reduce unemployment. Why, this legislation alone creates 159 new government agencies that will have to be staffed by the proletariat. Sorry! I meant to say, the American Worker! Keep in mind that under the Obama Administration, government wages have soared to the point where government jobs now pay 45% more than their private sector equivalents. Luckily, this will help us as well as small businesses (which presently constitute 40-50% of our GDP) begin to fail. As their fat-cat owners return to middle-to-lower income strata, we’ll need the higher-paid government “bureaupaths” (my term for pathological bureaucrats) to pick up the tax burden as they become an increasing percentage of the dreaded class of the “wealthy.” Otherwise, how are we ever going to pay for the benefits of this great reform?

This brings us to immigration reform. How, you might ask, does the Health Care Reform Bill contribute to immigration reform? You are just so naïve. It’s simple really! Immigrants want to immigrate to a country that offers them a better life. These poor, misguided individuals chose to come to the United States because it was the “land of opportunity” (as both sets of my first-generation grandparents used to impress upon me during my formative years). Until recently, I believed this. I’ve now learned that the Eurasian model is far preferable to ours and that we need to emulate it in every way. The President told me so as did his Minister of Propaganda, Heir Glib. Oops! That should have been Press Secretary, Gibbs! I can see the logic. Initially, all the “freebies” will attract a surge in immigration. We’ll grant amnesty to those who enter illegally because it’s a “moral imperative.” It also creates a base of cheap labor. This is important because, as ambition erodes, these may be the only jobs that will be left (other than the high paying government positions we already discussed). Besides, these immigrants will be beholden to party in office, which means it can count on their votes. The longer they’re in office, the more they can increase taxes and socialize our country so we can become more “Eurasian.” The Eurasian-socialist model hasn’t attracted a great deal of immigration in the last few centuries, and the same could be said for South and Central America, which have followed similar paths. After a while, people aspiring for a better quality of life will look at their countries and ours and have a hard time distinguishing between them. As a result, they’ll just give up and stop immigrating to the United States. Immigration problem solved! And all because of Health Care Reform. Mexican companies will probably even begin setting up plants in the United States because of the cheap labor pool that will be available. After all these years, NAFTA will finally work in our favor!

The Health Care Reform Bill is also almost synonymous with government reform. We were promised “transparency,” and we finally got it. It is now “clear” that all new legislation will be created unilaterally and with utter disregard to public opinion. It is also now “clear” that “political favors” (in which massive sums of money are exchanged for votes) do not constitute bribes in the current Congressional lexicon. It is also “clear” that unqualified zealots, who behave as if they’ve finally won election to their junior high school student councils, may not measure up to the intellectual prowess and real-world experience of the Framers of the Constitution, but they make up for it in their juvenile enthusiasm for party politics.

President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Reid, et al. are true geniuses. While many of us may not have recognized the expansive impact of Health Care Reform, may we now be enlightened to the cataclysmic potential it offers to address such a wide bandwidth of social problems. All hail the King and his Court.

Yes, anyone who thinks that running the United States is more complicated than organizing a community obviously hasn’t planted an acorn in recent years … only to watch it rise into a mighty twig before someone runs over it with a lawnmower. Good news: there’s plenty of time between now and November to tune up your lawnmowers. Happy mowing everyone!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. 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.

A Guideline for Congressional Change "We Can Believe In"

Oh, how I miss the days of the Kennedy Administration. Camelot was inspiring, and John F. Kennedy was truly an exceptional speaker … without the need to rely on the assistance of a TelePrompter to merit such praise.

Today, outside of John Edward’s unfortunate reenactment of a prominent Kennedy flaw (taken to a whole new level of complicity), there are only memories of the great leadership of that time. And even Edwards’ best effort doesn’t seem to measure up to Kennedy’s standards. “I knew Marilyn Monroe. She was a friend of mine. And you, Rielle Hunter, are NO Marilyn Monroe.” For that matter, Lisa Druck isn’t even Norma Jean Baker. Besides, camcorders didn’t even exist in the early sixties, so we have no documentary evidence to offer the Smithsonian, which I’m sure either Edwards or his sidekick, Andrew Young, will do at some time in the future. (As an aside, I don’t ask much of my Followers, but please do me this one favor: DO NOT BUY Andrew Young’s book, The Politician. If you’re even tempted … donate the money to charity instead. You have my deepest appreciation.)

Before the days of ceremonial coronations, President Kennedy gave an eloquent inaugural address; devoid of any blame of past Administrations and conciliatory in tone. “… We observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom - symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning - signifying renewal, as well as change. The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebearers fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.” In retrospect, maybe it wasn’t such a great speech. I mean, he called for “change” but also celebrated prior accomplishments by acknowledging the importance of “renewal.” Then, he ostensibly stated that the “rights of man” come from God rather than the United States Congress. This flies in the face of the ACLU and possibly infringes upon the beliefs of the Senate Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House.

“Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans - born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage - and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.” Perhaps, we are too far removed from those times to appreciate what he said. Perhaps, we now take peace on a global scale for granted. Perhaps, our history is taught in such a politically correct way that we no longer feel the intense pride in our heritage that we once did. Perhaps, because the world at that time had come perilously close to experiencing what it was like to be governed by a mad man, there was a greater commitment to making sure that threat never arose again.

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge … and more.” I must say, that sounds a bit arrogant to me. It’s almost as if we saved the French from speaking German. Today, I’m sure we would just apologize for trashing their beach in Normandy. If FDR had the courtesy to announce a preordained date upon which time we would withdraw our troops from France, he may have had a shot at winning the Nobel Peace Prize.

Kennedy went on to address our commitment to third world countries and South and Central America; to help their poor and protect them from aggression or subversion. He also went on to encourage a strengthening of the United Nations “to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective.” I guess he saw that one coming!

Thereafter, President Kennedy entered into a vision of how to improve the tenuous relationship that existed between the United States and the United Soviet Socialist Republic. For those of you who are too young to remember, the U.S.S.R. was a failed social experiment predicated upon a redistribution of wealth. Don’t worry ... no one would ever be naïve enough to try that again.

However, Kennedy’s proposed solution still has merit. It is a guideline that could be used to create “Change You Can Believe In” in Washington, D.C.

“So let us begin anew - remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

“Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

“Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals …

“Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

“Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah - to ‘undo the heavy burdens - and to let the oppressed go free.’

“And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.”

Close your eyes and try to imagine a United States Congress that operated under this guideline. What a glorious redirection it would be!

“In your hands, my fellow citizens … will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty … Now the trumpet summons us again - not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are - but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, ‘rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation’ - a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself … Will you join in that historic effort?”

And then, President Kennedy gave what very well may be the most magnificent advice ever offered in our Nation’s great history: “And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.” It’s as if he was channeling Thomas Jefferson, who believed in “the People” rather than a monolithic government to provide for them.

Kennedy even had the audacity to extend the challenge to those with whom we share the planet: “My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man." In closing, he said, “Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own.” With apologies to the ACLU, I think his ideas are still pretty compelling.

In his State of the Union speech, President Obama called upon our two major parties to end their “perpetual campaign(s).” While it might resonate more if he took the lead, at least his rhetoric is correct. Personally, I wish all the Democrats and Republicans in Washington, D.C. would take time to read and consider the wisdom contained in President Kennedy’s inaugural address. But then again, I’m a dreamer … because I also always wished that they would do the same thing with the United States Constitution!

*****

© 2010 by Dr. 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.

Random Thoughts

Just when you thought our politicians in Washington, D.C. were of no value, here’s a game I invented that you can play at home. The premise of the game is that all politicians’ names are actually acronyms. So first, write the names of our political leaders on slips of paper and throw them into a hat. Then, draw a single name from the hat and show it to all the players. You each have 15 seconds per letter to create an explanation for the acronym. For example:

OBAMA (1.25 min): Ordinary Background … Absent Much Achievement

PELOSI (1.50 min): Poorly Equipped Leader Of Socialist Idiots

REID (1.00 min): Really Egotistical Incumbent Democrat

BOEHNER (1.75 min): Better Off Eating Hotdogs … Not Educating Republicans

CANTOR: (1.50 min): Constantly Against Neutering The Other Republicans

LIEBERMAN (2.5 min): Likeable Independent Even Before Ever Running Mostly As Neutral

See how it works with either party? Try a few at home.

Then, vote for whose explanation best describes the politician. That’s what I call a lesson in democracy. If no one gets a two-thirds majority, you can either work to reach a compromise or filibuster to your heart’s desire.

The winner of each round receives $5 billion in stimulus money for each letter of the name they explained. The game isn’t over until $1 trillion dollars has been distributed. You won’t believe how long it will take you to complete the game.

*****

Speaking of the Poorly Equipped Leader of Socialist Idiots … oh, I’m sorry, I meant to say Nancy Pelosi … do you remember her pledge on October 5, 2006? She promised that if the American people would give the Democratic Party legislative majorities in Congress, the Democrats will, "turn the most closed and corrupt Congress into the most open and honest Congress.” Based upon what I’ve seen since the American people kept their end of the bargain, the Democratic Party is still trying hard to establish “the most closed and corrupt Congress;” witness all the backroom dealings surrounding healthcare reform this past year. The good Speaker went on to say, “The only way you can make the change that needs to be made for our country - a new direction where we're there for the many and not the few - is to drain the swamp." Since we followed her lead back in 2006, I think the least we can do is to “drain the swamp” for her in November. Massachusetts has already bailed the first bucket. Now, that’s what I call “Change We Can Believe In.”

*****

Nancy also led an impressive delegation from the United States to the U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. The Speaker approved twenty other Congressmen (15 Democrats and 6 Republicans total) and 38 staff members to attend with her. I’m not sure why Congressmen need two staffers each to accompany them on a trip of this nature, but former Senator and Presidential candidate John Edwards assures me that it is standard procedure. Apparently, it has something to do with having one to hold the camera.

When you add the Senators and their staff that chose to attend, you pass the 100 mark. That doesn’t include spouses and family members who took advantage of the “free” trip as well. Initial estimates indicate that the “free” trip only cost taxpayers $1.1 million … not including the cost of President Obama and his entourage, who also visited the event.

Perhaps, the 100+ people in the delegation are the individuals the President was admonishing in his State of the Union speech when he said, “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.” I mean, why else would all these people travel to Copenhagen for a Climate Change Conference other than to be educated on the issue. They certainly didn’t contribute in any meaningful way. The Conference itself has been described as a “disappointing failure.”

Clearly, most of these people must disagree with the premise that climate change is an issue. After all, it took three U.S. military jets, two 737s and Speaker Pelosi’s Gulfstream V to transport the bulk of the delegation to the Conference, while 59 individuals flew commercial. The President’s attendance means that Air Force One, a spare, identical plane and several cargo planes also made the trip. That means our delegation created a carbon footprint that would make Sasquatch feel inadequate.

Didn’t these people know that Al Gore had already spoken at the event during its first few days? Do we really need anything beyond the prognostications of the “Father of the Internet?” My goodness, he’s even got an Oscar! If that isn’t “overwhelming scientific evidence,” I don’t know what is. Big Al told the world that, “These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years.” Unfortunately, this apparently came as a surprise to Dr. Maslowski. On the bright side, maybe there’s another movie in this … perhaps a comedy!

*****

On May 25, 1961, I remember hearing President Kennedy say, “First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth.” I also remember the disbelief with which that comment was met. At the time, I did not realize that the speech was unusual in that it was a mid-year State of the Union address; but Kennedy thought that the mission was of sufficient importance for a rare break from tradition.

Earlier in his speech, he recognized the magnitude of the challenge: “I believe we possess all the resources and talents necessary. But the facts of the matter are that we have never made the national decisions or marshaled the national resources required for such leadership. We have never specified long-range goals on an urgent time schedule, or managed our resources and our time so as to insure their fulfillment.” Yet, he pulled Congressional leadership together to pursue the objective; not by upbraiding the opposition … but by moving all members toward a common goal.

On July 20, 1969, President Kennedy’s prediction became a reality when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon. I had the pleasure of meeting Neil Armstrong in 1971 when he joined the University of Cincinnati’s Aerospace Engineering faculty. He was quite an unassuming man for one who had traveled so far to ignite the excitement of a nation. I still remember how everyone was transfixed while watching that “one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.”

I wonder if President Kennedy ever could have imagined that a young man, born just days after his inspiring speech, would someday become the 44th President of the United States … only to terminate the space program as we know it.

*****

Healthcare Reform pales by comparison to the technological challenge associated with landing someone on the moon when it was first proposed in 1961. One has to wonder how easy it would have been to pass good Healthcare Reform had it been the focus of an Administration that stimulated intellectual agreement and apolitical cooperation. Common sense tells us … it wouldn’t have taken very long.

*****

© 2010 by Dr. 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.

Endorsed by the President

Wow, was I thrilled with last night’s State of the Union address. Right there at the 45 minute mark, the President steps up and openly endorses me: “Let’s try ‘Common Sense’ … a novel concept.” I can’t tell you how honored I was. It’s not everyday you get a ringing endorsement from the President of the United States!

I loved his speech as well. It was almost inspirational at the end when he was chastising Congress and the Supreme Court. With respect to the latter, I was afraid for a moment that Justice Alito might try to reprise Congressman Wilson’s “You lie!” faux pas of September 10th, but he maintained judicial decorum by merely shaking his head with a look of disdain and uttering the phrase, “That’s not true.” Since courts like to make distinctions, this gives the Justice a way to distinguish his actions from Congressman Wilson’s. The fact that the President may have misinterpreted the Supreme Court’s narrow ruling of 2 U.S.C. 441e need not be taken into consideration.

I was particularly impressed with the President’s empathy and demonstrated understanding. He really seems to have “connected” with the frustration of the American people. When he stated that we have “lost faith” in our biggest institutions (corporations, media, and the government), I think he was “right on.” Of course, I expect America’s Crappy Lawyers Union (the ACLU) to ask that the term “faith” be stricken from the record, but I don’t believe he meant it in a religious context. No, the President went on to excoriate any “CEO who rewards himself for failure” and any Banker “who puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain.” Putting aside the masculine references, which again may evoke a claim of sex discrimination from the ACLU, I agree with him on this point. I think he was running short on time, so while he had an opportunity to single out unscrupulous CEOs and Bankers (and it wasn’t a good night for Bankers), he didn’t have the chance to address the government, in whom we’ve “lost faith” as well. So, I’ll cover that for him.

You see, Common Sense suggests that we “lose faith” in government when our elected officials spend money irresponsibly … as if it’s their money. We “lose faith” when votes are “bought” to pass ill-conceived legislation … something we call bribery in the real world. We “lose faith” when billions of dollars are traded for favors in the form of earmarks; although we were promised a website that would list future earmarks for all to see. Note that in contrast with what was promised during the Presidential campaign, we were not told that anything would be done to eliminate earmarks … just that they would be posted. What can I say? I think this kind of bold and decisive action leaves us all “atwitter” (no pun intended).

I liked it when the President admonished Congress. He said it was not the time to be “playing it safe, and avoid telling hard truths, and pointing fingers … doing what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election.” I agree! However, we tend to “lose faith” when this reprimand comes after the President has repeatedly blamed the former Administration for the “massive fiscal hole” he inherited when he came into office. We “lose faith” when he ignores the fact that he helped dig that hole when he voted for the bills that generated the debt while he was a Senator in a Democratic-controlled Congress. We “lose faith” when he issues the rebuke after he has repeatedly blamed big business (and particularly the banking industry) for the ills of our economy. From a Common Sense perspective, it just seems a bit insincere.

We further “lose faith” when the flames of class warfare are fanned to capture support. “We won’t extend tax cuts to Oil Companies, Investment Fund Managers and those making over $250 thousand a year.” I happen to know people in each of these groups who do not merit vilification. There is nothing inherently evil about them, but I guess it makes for good theatre. Oil Companies employ thousands of people; Investment Fund Managers are not all sharing a cell with Bernie Madoff (or former Congressmen Cunningham and Biaggi for that matter); and just because someone has established a level of success that generates an income in excess of $250,000 doesn’t mean they lie, cheat and steal to do it. It would be far more inspiring to find a way to raise peoples’ standard of living rather than trying to lower the standard of those who have achieved success … but I digress.

We “lose faith” when the latest “whipping boy,” the banking industry, is attacked for its greed and corruption without any mention of the uncapped monetary resources of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac and the uncapped compensation of their executives. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it the collapse of the housing market and the bundling of related “troubled assets” that led us to TARP (the Troubled Assets Relief Program)? Wasn’t it the Congress in which the President served that passed legislation mandating that loans be given to people who couldn’t possibly repay them? Good business? No! Good politics? Well, it helped gain an overwhelming majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives and secure the Presidency, so I guess the answer is “Yes!”

We “lose faith” when there are obvious contradictions between campaign rhetoric and reality. Oil Companies are bad … but we’re going to drill offshore. Tax cuts are bad … but we passed 25 of them last year (I guess they’re only bad if they’re not being given to your voting base). We’re going to “exclude Lobbyists from policy-making decisions or seats on federal boards or commissions” … but we’re going to make 12 special exceptions while trying to form the current Administration’s team. A trillion dollar deficit is bad … but only the one associated with a lame-duck Administration that had to drive legislation through a recalcitrant opposition’s significant majority.

My favorite of the night was, “What frustrates American people is a Washington where everyday is an election day … we can’t wage a perpetual campaign.” Great sound bite! Unfortunately, it was followed by, you guessed it, what can only be characterized as a campaign speech. Security, withdrawing our combat troops from Iraq, human rights, civil rights, employment discrimination, hate crimes, equal pay, border security (I think Secretary Napolitano may have been dozing off at this point) … all were covered. Then, it was announced that the President would be leaving in the morning to basically repeat the same stump speech in various States across the country; States which, coincidentally, have major seats up for election in November. I can only hope there are enough Teleprompters to go around.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m all for a Jobs Bill, Healthcare Reform, and a Comprehensive Clean Energy and Climate Bill. I just don’t think any of them should be based on rhetoric, bad information, or political interests. The President said he’d be open to advice on healthcare reform: “If anyone has a better plan that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know.” Given his new and open support of Common Sense, I’ll be writing an article on Healthcare Reform in the near future that will do just that.

In the mean time, I’ll try to learn more about “budgeting.” Apparently, it’s about freezing Congressional spending … but only in a year because “that’s what budgeting is.” I must have missed that in my finance courses in college. Then again, maybe the President is really just a closet Cubs fan who can’t break away from a fundamental belief in “Wait ‘til next year.”

I’ll admit I was left with a tear in my eye because of the closing story about the eight year old boy who sent his allowance to President Obama and asked that it be sent to Haiti. After taxes, I think it amounted to 12 cents. Then, I saw Speaker Pelosi lean over to Vice President Biden to offer a thought. I’m sure she was suggesting that they could cut back on their political perquisites and redirect the money to those in need. Nancy, you’re going to miss the private plane, the subsidized food, the large staff, etc. … but God bless you for caring.

*****

2010 © Dr. 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.

Terrorism

In my last blog, I made helpful suggestions concerning how the current Administration could reduce its operating costs by limiting the number of Czars to two: the Faith-Based Czar (I am not messing with that one) … and me, the Common Sense Czar! Now, its time to move on to helping our country address other critical issues that weigh on our collective conscience.

I’m going to move terrorism to the top of the heap … in front of healthcare. Admittedly, it sometimes seems difficult to distinguish the two. However, our healthcare system generally has to pick us off one-at-a-time while terrorists seem hell-bent on killing hundreds or thousands of us in a single attack.

For some reason, we seem challenged to figure out how to treat terrorists. Everybody is in agreement that terrorism is “bad,” but there seems to be a significant concern about how we might be viewed by the world if we are too harsh in the way in which we question and prosecute terrorists. There also is a school of thought that says that we need to “mellow out” because our actions may inflame terrorist activity. For example: Guantanamo needs to be shut down because al-Qaeda might view it as a symbolic representation of our country’s unsympathetic position when it comes to the mass-murdering of its citizens.

During a recent Homeland Security Committee hearing before the United States Senate, no one could identify who, within the Department of Justice, made the decision to place Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in our civilian criminal justice system and afford him full protection under the Constitution. Of equal concern: Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, National Counterterrorism Center Director Michael Leiter, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, and FBI Director Robert Mueller each testified that they had not been consulted on the issue. So, the only thing we know is that someone within the Department of Justice “made the call.” This would be the same Department of Justice that has been threatening to investigate Maricopa County Sheriff Arpaio and his department for enforcing immigration laws in Arizona. Perhaps Attorney General Eric Holder and his staff think that Abdulmutallab has been punished enough by being nicknamed the "Underwear Bomber." After all, we don’t want to “inflame” other terrorists … although, come to think of it, Umar essentially tried to “inflame” himself. But I guess it really doesn’t matter because Press Secretary “Glib” announced that we had already learned everything we could in the 50 minutes of questioning that occurred prior to Umar receiving his Miranda warning. Since then, he has chosen to “remain silent.” I guess we can all rest easier since Press Secretary “Glib” says it’s okay.

IT’S OBVIOUSLY TIME FOR THE COMMON SENSE CZAR TO INTERVENE. So, here it is … the Common Sense doctrine of how to deal with terrorism:

Terrorists will not be given the rights of our citizens … period! Try to blow up a plane … don’t expect to receive a Miranda warning. Your “right to remain silent” officially stopped when you decided to detonate an explosive device in an attempt to kill hundreds of innocent people. I’ll provide the water and the board … and we’ll find out more about those additional attacks you promised were coming before you have the opportunity to “lawyer up.”

Speaking of confessions: if you confess to planning the attack on 9/11 (as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed did) … don’t expect me to authorize spending $100 million to try you in a civilian court in New York so the world will think we’re a kinder, gentler nation. You’re a terrorist … not a civilian. In fact, I wouldn’t even waste time and money trying you before a military tribunal. During these tough economic times, I’d just authorize $100 for a few rounds of .50 caliber ammunition and make a Navy Seal count to 10 while you try to escape in an open field.

And speaking of Navy Seals, I’m also not going to subject them to court martial proceedings for allegedly punching you during (or after) your capture as was done based upon the complaint of Ahmed Hashim Abed. As I recall, he was the mastermind behind the ambush of four Blackwater agents who were transporting supplies for a catering company. The victims were killed by gunfire and grenades. Then, their bodies were burned and dragged through the city. Two of the victims’ bodies were then hung on a bridge over the Euphrates River to create a “photo op” for the world press. No, I’m not going to authorize expensive court martial proceedings for the Navy Seals. Instead, I’m going to authorize a few dollars for some really nice medals to pin on their chests and give them each a new Louisville Slugger, personally autographed by Hank Aaron, with instructions to “swing away” next time. Just as a level set: the number of US combat troops who have been captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and recovered alive is approximately zero. What goes around comes around.

Now, just so you don’t get the idea that I’m some kind of violent or vindictive Czar … I’m not. I just care more about protecting the lives of innocent individuals than I do about creating new rights for those who would intentionally and viciously attack them. In that regard, I guess I’m a “strict constructionist” with regard to the Eight Amendment’s protection against “cruel and unusual punishment” when it comes to terrorists. The conjunction is “and” rather than “or.” Therefore, I think the Framers meant that punishment can be “cruel” as long as it’s not “unusual” (think about the punishments that were exacted back in Revolutionary times). My personal recommendation for punishing terrorists is to parallel their treatment of prisoners when it comes time to sentence them. After all, there isn’t a more direct way of determining what they think is “kosher” in this regard (no pun intended). If they think that their actions might be applied directly to them, it may give them a new perspective when it comes to cutting off the heads of live prisoners, etc.

As a friend of mine once said, “You can’t attribute rationale thought to irrational behavior.” Rationale people do not ascribe to killing innocent people; be they in Iraq, Afghanistan or the United States. Terrorists do not differentiate between men, women and children. They do not differentiate between military personnel and civilians. They do not even differentiate between those who support them … and those who don’t. They just call the supporters they send to slaughter “martyrs” rather than what they really are, which is “dead.”

One final point: my Common Sense definition of a “terrorist” is one who, either individually or in concert with others, uses or threatens to use force or violence against innocent people to intimidate or coerce ideological change. As our President would say, “Let me be clear.” I don’t distinguish between a card-carrying member of al-Qaeda, a lunatic psychiatrist in the military, and a citizen who would blow up a building in Oklahoma City. In my book, they’re all terrorists … and now, you know how the Common Sense Czar would deal with them.

*****

2010 © Dr. 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.

The Common Sense Czar

I was going to write a blog entitled “State of the Union” … but I thought it might be too depressing. Instead, I thought I’d take a positive approach and suggest a solution to some of our current challenges: appoint me as the new “Common Sense Czar.” After all, we already have more than 30 other Czars … so, what’s the big deal in adding one more?

With all due respect to Thomas Paine, author of Common Sense, I think I deserve the job. Besides, Thomas Paine has been dead for over 200 years … even though he’s still registered to vote in three States according to Acorn.

Being a Czar is really cool. Unlike politicians, you don’t have to have to raise money to run; you generally don’t have to be vetted in any particularly rigorous way; you’re not responsible to the citizens of the United States; you have reasonably unbridled authority; and you get to be called “Czar!”

So, what would my responsibilities be as Common Sense Czar? Essentially, I would be expected to apply common sense to the issues of the day; something that has been missing in our Nation’s capital for quite some time. I’d take on Healthcare, our missions overseas, terrorism, etc. … but first, I’d apply common sense to help rationalize the glut of Czars we already have. Here’s a list I found that may be a bit dated but at least gives you an idea of who’s on the team.

Guantanamo Closure Czar

TARP Czar

Stimulus Accountability Czar

Government Performance Czar

Afghanistan Czar

Sudan Czar

Mideast Peace Czar

Central Region Czar

Terrorism Czar

Weapons Czar

WMD Policy Czar

Intelligence Czar

Border Czar

Domestic Violence Czar

Drug Czar

Great Lakes Czar

California Water Czar

Climate Czar

Energy and Environment Czar

Green Jobs Czar

Economic Czar

Regulatory Czar

Pay Czar

Car Czar

Auto Recovery Czar

Science Czar

Technology Czar

Information Czar

AIDS Czar

Health Czar

Urban Affairs Czar

Faith-Based Czar

It’s tough to know your Czars without a scorecard. I can hear it now: “Playing left field and batting ninth, Number 17, Guantanamo Closure Czar, Daniel Fried.” I want to give Mr. Fried special recognition because, if he’s successful, he won’t have a job. Luckily for him, he hasn’t made much progress on the Executive Order issued by President Obama on January 22, 2009, to close Gitmo “no later than one year from now” to quote the President. If and when Czar Fried is successful, maybe he can be reappointed Unemployment Czar. After all, our number of unemployed citizens is starting to approach the population of our illegal aliens ... a group which seems to be getting far more positive political attention. It must have something to do with critical mass.

Another couple of “fried” Czars would seem to be the TARP Czar and the Stimulus Accountability Czar. On February 25, 2009, just eight days after signing the $787-billion dollar economic stimulus package, President Obama stated that he was putting Vice President Joe Biden in charge of the "tough, unprecedented oversight effort" of the fiscal stimulus plan "because nobody messes with Joe." I can’t imagine why we would need these two Czars if Vice President Biden has everything under control.

Jeffrey Zients’ role would seem to be in jeopardy as well. After all, he’s the Government Performance Czar. Given our Government’s performance in recent years, I can’t even imagine someone making a case to keep him.

Come to think of it, I could probably replace all of the Czars. Let’s think through this together!

Afghanistan and the Sudan are independent countries. If we have military or humanitarian initiatives in any country, it is Congress’ responsibility to address the issues. We don’t need Czars for these specific countries. After all, if we’re going to appoint a Czar for a particular country, why not start with Russia? They’re used to it.

Then, we’ve got the Mideast Peace Czar. Talk about a dead-end job! These countries have been fighting for over 2,000 years. What are the odds that a political appointee in the United States will be able to resolve their differences? That’s one more position we can eliminate. And while we’re at it, let’s eliminate the Central Region Czar who is responsible for our policies in, you guessed it, the same part of the world; needless duplication. Gone!

While we’re on the subject, we presently have a Terrorist Czar. No, not Bill Ayres (although he might be a good choice under the assumption that “it takes one to know one”) … a fellow named John Brennan. This is the same John Brennan who allegedly nixed a plan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden back in 1998. Way to establish job security! Eliminating this position shouldn’t exactly create a void.

Staying with the terrorist theme for a moment, I see we have a Weapons Czar and a WMD Policy Czar. Why differentiate? If the Weapons Czar only tackles issues of conventional weaponry (like sling-shots), we don’t need him. If there really are “no weapons of mass destruction,” we don’t need the WMD Policy Czar either. Assuming for the moment that weapons of mass destruction are not just a figment of former President Bush’s imagination, I’ll establish the policy. Weapons of mass destruction are bad things; particularly in the hands of unstable people. There you have it … a common sense policy and two more positions eliminated.

Along these same lines, we have an Intelligence Czar. Let’s just agree that it’s an obvious oxymoron and eliminate the position to stop the snickering!

We have a Border Czar to protect us from illegal immigration. If you call this Czar’s office, press 1 for English, press 2 for Spanish, press 3 for Tagalog, press 4 for Farsi, press 5 for … well, you get the picture. Applying common sense: we have immigration laws in place. Enforce them! One more position eliminated.

This same solution can be applied to two more positions: Domestic Violence Czar and Drug Czar. Common sense tells us that domestic violence and the illegal use of drugs is bad. We have laws in place against both negative behaviors. Enforce them! That gets rid of those two Czars.

Next, we have a few positions tied to specific locations within our country. We have a Great Lakes Czar. I’ve been to the Lakes. They’re indeed “Great.” That should cover it. Position eliminated!

We also have a California Water Czar … as if there aren’t any other problems in the state. Interestingly enough, this particular one is man-made. Last year, California and the surrounding states enjoyed record snowfalls, which created an abundance of water. However in 2007, a federal judge ruled that endangered smelt might get caught in the pumps. So, the pumps were ordered to be shut down to preserve the habitat for the tiny silver fish. As a result, taxpayers from San Diego to San Jose have been placed on water allocation and have suffered significant rate hikes; farmers have been threatened with foreclosures and bankruptcies because they can’t irrigate their crops; but I’m happy to say that the smelt are enjoying living their lives and being eaten by natural predators. I apologize in advance to environmentalists, but there comes a time when common sense must intervene. So, I say open the pumps, restore the agrarian economy, fish fry at my house, and eliminate this position.

Since, I’ve already offended my fellow environmentalists, let’s take a look at three other unnecessary positions: Climate Czar, Energy and Environment Czar, and Green Jobs Czar. If we accept the premise of global warming established by world-renowned scientist and inventor of the Internet, Al Gore, climate would seem to be a legitimate issue. Luckily, the federal and state governments have authority to create laws that make us better “citizens” of the planet. Unfortunately, we have no authority to legislate what China, India and the rest of the world do. So, the Climate Czar can step down.

Similarly, we don’t have a need for an Energy and Environment Czar. The environmental element is repetitive and, as for energy, I can set the policy: eliminate our dependence on foreign oil; cultivate our natural resources in a responsible way (which doesn’t mean “rape the earth” any more than it means that accessing them will destroy the world as we know it); and develop new and better alternative fuels.

This brings us to the Green Job Czar, but I need not address this one. Apparently, the White House has already excused him when it was discovered that he took the whole Czar thing a little too literally and pledged allegiance to Stalin.

Speaking of jobs, I find it interesting that we don’t have a Jobs Czar. No problem … I can handle it. We do have an Economic Czar, so maybe there’s some overlap. Paul Volcker headed the Federal Reserve during the latter stages of the Carter Administration and through the Reagan years. The good news is that he is credited with helping our Nation overcome “stagflation.” The bad news is that he did it by raising the prime lending rate to 21.5% and driving the economy into a deep recession that created a level of unemployment not seen since the Great Depression. I’m eliminating his position because we’re already there when it comes to creating a recession and experiencing an untenable level of unemployment.

Corresponding, I’m going to eliminate the Regulatory Czar. I’ve soured on the self-righteousness of our regulatory agencies ever since the “anointed one,” Eliot Spitzer, prostituted his position as Governor of New York after ruling herd over the bastions of Wall Street. I’ll only reconsider if Bernie Madoff gets an early parole and assumes the role of Frank Abagnale, Jr. (I hope that reference isn’t too esoteric). Besides, the current Regulatory Czar apparently wants to “regulate” everything including “free speech” (of which I am obviously a fan). Cass Sunstein thinks that conspiracy theories should be taxed or censored and numbers among them the theory that “global warming” may be a deliberate fraud. He also wants to lobby for the right for animals to bring lawsuits. This would give even more power to the ACLU (America’s Crappy Lawyers Union) to bring “udderly” worthless lawsuits on behalf of sacred cows; barring them from grazing on government property as a violation of the separation church and state. Gone!

We also have a Pay Czar. This is the individual who, like the Regulatory Czar, remains ever vigilant over those fat-cat CEOs in high-profile industries we all love to hate. However, I can’t help noticing that he hasn’t imposed any restrictions on the compensation of the executives at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, who have almost single-handedly destroyed the economy. I also don’t recall seeing any “smack downs” of the union officials who can consistently deliver political votes in volume. Common sense tells me he has to go!

While we’re talking about unions, I feel compelled to point out that we have two Czars for the automotive industry: a Car Czar and an Auto Recovery Czar. By now, you know how I feel about redundancy. I’m not sure what either does, but I’m sure we don’t need two. Under the Car Czar’s guidance, both General Motors and Chrysler have gone bankrupt. Since I’m reasonably confident they could have accomplished that without him, his position is being eliminated. As for the Auto Recovery Czar, I’m not sure if he’s vested with the responsibility to help the automotive industry "recover" from the bankruptcies the Car Czar has overseen, or if his responsibility is to "recover" the taxpayer dollars that have been funneled into the industry without any noticeable results. Once again, this is a position we can safely eliminate.

Moving along into the vital science, technology and information sectors, I am happy to say we have a Czar for each one. Our Science Czar is a top-flight academic, which means that common sense isn’t a part of his world. He once proffered the idea of forced abortions, "compulsory sterilization," and the creation of a "Planetary Regime" to control human population and natural resources to save the Earth. “Earth to Science Czar,” I’ll only consider keeping you if the “compulsory sterilization” idea begins with Members of our current Congress.

Our Technology Czar and Information Czar are good friends. Together, they will lead the evolution of Information Technology within our government. You guessed it … I see this as redundant. Given that the Information Czar came first and brought the technology Czar on board, I’ve got to give the nod to him. Unfortunately, he’s been linked to hiring individuals with criminal records to protect our information. Since I’d hate to break up a team, they both have to go.

With healthcare reform on the forefront, we have two Czars that touch upon it: an AIDS Czar and a Health Czar. The AIDS Czar can go. AIDS is a disease. Other than its associated political capital, it does not rank in the top ten causes of death in the United States (which are (1) Heart Disease; (2) Cancer ; (3) Stroke; (4) Chronic Lower Respiratory Diseases; (5) Accidents (unintentional injuries); (6) Diabetes; (7) Alzheimer's disease; (8) Influenza and Pneumonia; (9) Nephritis, Nephrotic Syndrome, and Nephrosis; and (10) Septicemia. Sorry, but until the Top Ten have their own Czar, AIDS doesn’t merit one. Because the Health Czar hasn’t had the common sense to recognize this either, she’s gone too!

I’m sad to report that we have a comparatively unaccomplished Urban Affairs Czar. Why settle? This is America. We have John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford and, most recently, Tiger Woods. Now, these men clearly know how to have urban affairs! If none of them will step up to embrace their civic duty, let’s just eliminate this position.

This brings me to the final Czar I will discuss: the Faith-Based Czar. I can’t imagine why the ACLU has not attacked this position with its normal zeal. The issue would seem to be obvious. Maybe it’s Devine intervention. If that’s the case, my common sense says not to “mess” with this one. I’ll hedge my long-term bet and let this one stay.

So there you have it: it’s just the Faith-Based Czar and me.

NEXT BLOG: The Common Sense Czar addresses Terrorism and Healthcare Reform (just try to tell them apart)

2010 © Dr. 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.

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