Our Debt of Gratitude … or Gratuitousness

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 14, 2011 – As our National Debt skyrockets toward its $14.3 trillion limit, the favorite past-time of our politicians is about to begin.  In something reminiscent of the start of the Indianapolis 500 and with a presidential election year on the horizon, the budgetary debate starts with: “Ladies and gentlemen, start your name-calling.”   Why can’t the Democrats and Republicans just focus on the job at hand and put Party politics aside … just this once?

Assuming you weren’t taking an afternoon nap, you might have heard the President’s second speech about our Nation’s 2012 budget.  His first one in February was a real “yawner,” but with two more months to prepare, he delivered a scintillating reprise yesterday … just ask Vice President Biden.

The President’s speech also was a response to the Republican budget proposal:  The Path to Prosperity: Restoring America’s Promise.  If titles make a difference, the Republican’s have a winner.  The President’s budget is named Fiscal Year 2012 Budget of the United States Government.  Alas, there’s probably more to a budget than just its name.

In support of their budget, the Republicans position the President and his Party as a bunch of “tax and spend” Liberals who will bring about the economic end to life as we know it.  Of course, anyone who paid attention during the last Bush Administration knows that the Republicans can give the Democrats some competition when it comes to spending.  A war here … a war there … and pretty soon, we’re talking “big” money!

The Republicans apparently hope that they can engineer their own version of social change (i.e., cutting the programs that are not favored by their donor-base) while diverting our attention to the sinister risk of the Liberals’ Robin Hood strategy (i.e., taking from the rich and giving to the poor … and ostensibly destroying jobs and small businesses in the process).  The Republican plan even projects a balanced budget by 2040.  That’s only 29 years from now!

Of course, the President’s plan isn’t nearly that assertive.  It doesn’t pretend to reach a breakeven point.  In fact, it adds an additional $9.5 trillion to our National Debt by the end of its tenth year.  Hmmm, where have we heard about a $9 trillion debt before?  You may recall someone saying:

“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.”

Was it Speaker Boehner?  No.  Perhaps it was Majority Leader McConnell or renegade Representative Ron Paul. No, again!  Well, which right-wing extremist was it? 

Actually, it was then-freshman Senator Barack Obama (March 20, 2006) who was imploring Congress not to increase the debt ceiling to $9 trillion.  What a difference a few years make.

Press Secretary Carney (perhaps the most aptly named Press Secretary in our Nation’s history) adds to the “carnival” flavor of the whole debate by explaining that President Obama “thinks it (his statement) was a mistake” and that the President now realizes that “raising the debt ceiling is so important to the health of this economy and the global economy that it is not a vote that, even when you are protesting an administration's policies, you can play around with.”  Seriously though, what difference does it make?  He got elected saying it and a lot of people have bought the theory that it was all Bush’s fault anyway.  Forget the fact that a President doesn’t have the legislative authority to do anything.  The Constitution is apparently overrated.

During the President’s speech, he dutifully invoked Lincoln and said the budget debate “will affect (our) lives in ways that are potentially profound.”  Then, he gave his version of American history as it pertains to what our country owes us.  Had President Kennedy been alive to hear it, he may have been disappointed.

President Obama began to inspire the audience by saying. “We came together as Democrats and Republicans to meet this challenge (the deficit) before, and we can do it again.”  Then, he ignored the word “together” and launched into an assault of the Republican Party.  Someone should tell him he needs their votes.

We learned that the Republicans are apparently against clean energy, education, transportation, sick people, the elderly, poor children, and middle-class families.  This is about as fair an assessment as the one proffered by some Conservatives who suggest that all Democrats favor a socialistic form of government and are against jobs and the American Dream.  Where’s the bipartisan spirit and change we were promised?  This just sounds like politics as usual.

The Republican plan targeted a feeble $4 trillion dollar reduction of the deficit over 10 years.  The President’s response was to promise a much more aggressive $4 trillion reduction of the deficit over 12 years.  Huh?

Do these people have any common sense … or math skills?  The Republican plan amounts to a $400 billion reduction per year, while the President’s plan calls for a $333 billion reduction.  Now, it’s becoming clearer why the Republican plan doesn’t project a balanced budget until 2040 and the President’s plan doesn’t project one at all.

Our National Debt is already approaching $14.3 trillion and is growing about $4 billion per day.  So, let’s do some simple math.  If we multiply $4 billion a day time 365 days in a year, we get $1,460 billion per year in new debt, yet even the more aggressive Republican program only averages a reduction of $400 billion per year.  Does that scare you?  It should!

Rather than wasting time delivering meaningless speeches that only serve political purposes, how about revisiting the issue of our National Debt in a meaningful way … or at least getting out of the way of others who can get the job done?

How about using an indexed federal budget that would take the political games out of establishing a budget (as described in The National Platform of Common Sense)?  It would flex with changes in GDP and population and allow for controlled exceptions to successfully address unplanned emergencies.

Do you remember those 14,000 unoccupied government buildings the President said he was going to sell earlier in the year?  Who’s going to buy them?  Perhaps more importantly, who’s going to finance the transactions?  If you guessed “no one,” you’re probably correct.

So how could we put them to use?  Why not offer them rent-free to entrepreneurs and small business owners whom everyone seems to agree are the economic engine behind our recovery?  All the tenants would have to do is pay for their utilities and create jobs along the way.  The program could be limited to a reasonable number of years at which time the companies would emerge from the incubator and stand on their own.  It seems that this approach would return more ongoing revenue to the government in the form of taxes than the one time capital infusion of a fire sale.

Republicans should love this approach because it’s all about jobs and small businesses.  Democrats should love the program because it will stimulate the economy and create a larger tax base.  Heck, it might even create a few rich people to tax along the way!

Would you like more ideas?  How about accepting the offer that the CEO of IBM made to the President in the Fall of last year.  Sam Palmisano offered President Obama IBM’s software and consulting assistance to identify $900 billion in medical fraud within the federal budget … for free.  Did I mention that it was for free (as opposed to the nearly $1 trillion price tag of Health Care Reform)?

The President apparently didn’t like the deal.  Maybe he was hoping IBM would offer to match the savings.  Benefactors do things like that in community organizing initiatives.  Unfortunately, we’re talking about the real world here.

Who among us would have turned down Mr. Palmisano’s offer?  It takes a very special ego to do something that ridiculous.

In his speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, President Obama said, “In addition to making government more affordable, we're also making it more effective and customer-friendly.  We're trying to run the government more like you run your businesses - with better technology and faster services.  In the coming months, my administration will develop a proposal to merge, consolidate, and reorganize the federal government in a way that best serves the goal of a more competitive America.  And we want to start with the twelve different agencies that deal with America's exports.”  How about starting with the 159 new agencies the Health Care Reform Bill created (assuming the Bill survives the courts).  Let’s try to rationalize how they can be combined before we allow them to take on a life of their own.

Would it make sense to dismiss the 40 Czars the President has appointed?  That should save a ton of money.

How about collecting the $1 billion in back taxes that are owed by federal employees … and/or terminating them … or would that get rid of too many Cabinet Members? 

Perhaps a few less campaign trips by the President and his entourage would also be in order.

Our country is in dire need of a turnaround.  Having facilitated turnarounds in the private sector for 30 years, I can assure you that they require quick and decisive action; something that’s lacking in the approaches of our major Parties.  Decisions have to be pragmatic, and personal feelings and friendships (or political ambitions and debts) have to be put aside.  The suggestions in this article are just common sense solutions that we are not hearing from our politicians.  Are there a myriad of others?  Of course there are!  The National Platform of Common Sense addresses them in more detail.  And you never know … maybe The Common Sense Czar will be coming to a city near you.  Maybe … I’ll even drop by Washington, D.C.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on April 28th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 790 AM, KTIE, Riverside County, from 8:00-9:00 PM.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  T.J. will also be appearing in Dayton, Ohio, at the Armed Forces Family Aid Concert on April 30^th.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                        www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:          http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

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

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

*****

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.

Shutdown? How about … “Shut Up!”

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 8, 2011 – With a government shutdown looming, it’s time to examine the credibility of the loudest voices on the Hill.  President Obama tells us that it’s time for “an adult discussion” in order to resolve the differences between the Parties on government spending.  Here’s the challenge:  where is he going to find an “adult” in Washington, D.C.?

Starting with the President:  he wasn’t willing (or able) to marshal a 2010 budget through Congress last year when his Party had overwhelming control of both the House and the Senate.  Why?  Could it have been because there was a risk of damaging the Democratic Party’s chances in the November election?  Oh gosh, that couldn’t have been the reason.  That would have been juvenile … particularly in retrospect.

So, the President should just blame the Republicans (and TEA Party) for his strategic ineptitude and that of his Party.  It was the Republicans’ fault that he and his Party didn’t pass a budget last year. Then, he should just threaten to veto a resolution that would keep the current debate moving forward.  That certainly would reflect “adult” behavior.

Next, let’s look at the “adults” who are running the Conservative side of the equation.  It is embarrassing to see them pretend that they are trying to cut the budget when their “line in the sand” is a veritable “spit in the ocean.”  Whether it’s $100 million, $60 million or $39 million in cuts, the amount is irrelevant in the face of the President’s $3.55 trillion budget proposal.

The Republican’s 2011 budget recommendation calls for trillions of dollars of cuts over the next 10 years.  That’s a bit more like it.  However, it would make more sense if the Party was at least open to revisiting the issue of possible short-term tax increases.  There are segments of our society that might be able to support a higher level of taxes to accelerate the correction of our out-of-control National Debt (not a tax increase on the ridiculously defined “rich” who earn $250,000 a year, but rather a tax on the “uber-rich” who earn annual incomes in the millions).  Under our Nation’s current economic conditions, it’s not “adult” to preclude the consideration of that alternative.

It is equally ridiculous to pretend that we can remain competitive in a global market as our corporate tax rates head toward attaining the dubious distinction of being the highest in the world.  For those career-Democrats who think that we can legislate new industries and job growth, maybe they should drop out of politics for a while and try starting a business.  It might give them an “adult” appreciation for what being “competitive” really means.  It might also help them grasp the impact that senseless government over-regulation has on businesses.

Perhaps most disappointing is the behavior of some of our more senior legislators.  Nancy Pelosi is on record as saying that it is strategically more effective for the Democratic Party to attack Republican recommendations than to fashion counter-recommendations of its own.  Wow, that’s certainly an “adult” approach.

Correspondingly, while the Left seems to be comfortable accusing the Right of being the sole source of incendiary language, Pelosi and her Senate counter-part, Majority Leader Harry Reid, have taken rebel-rousing to a new height … or should we say depth.

Yesterday, Pelosi tweeted that there was a “war against women” being waged by Republicans.  Today, Reid said that the GOP is trying to “throw women under the bus” by denying them healthcare (at least in the form of the government’s funding of Planned Parenthood); thereby forcing a government shutdown.  Majority Leader Reid would have us believe that “the Republicans are asking me to sacrifice my wife’s health, my daughter’s health, and my granddaughters’ health” … and that he’s “appalled” and “offended.”

We should be “appalled” and “offended” as well.  Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are both millionaires … several times over.  Neither Nancy nor any of Harry’s female relatives are likely to ever see the inside of a Planned Parenthood clinic for their routine healthcare needs.  Still, they would have us believe that Planned Parenthood is somehow a primary care center for women; a sole source for “cancer screenings” and “routine medical checkups.”  Physicians, hospitals and other clinics apparently no longer exist.  Perhaps Planned Parenthood should just be renamed “Women’s Healthcare Central.”  Grow up!

It appears that there is a Congressional IQ requirement on Capitol Hill … where “IQ” stands for “Idiot Quota.”  This is one quota that won’t require an “Affirmative Action” plan to meet it’s objective.  We already have an over-abundance of candidates.  If this kind of behavior continues, the real “adults” in this country are likely to open their windows and do their impression of Howard Beale of Network News.   

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on April 28th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 790 AM, KTIE, Riverside County, from 8:00-9:00 PM.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  T.J. will also be appearing in Dayton, Ohio, at the Armed Forces Family Aid Concert on April 30^th.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                        www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:          http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

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

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

*****

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.

The Path to Politics

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 8, 2011 – President Obama’s 2012 Budget and the GOP’s “Pathway to Prosperity” may have a common thread:  they both ignore reality.  The President presented his budget proposal for 2012 on Valentine’s Day, while the House Republicans presented their budget proposal on April 5th … just missing April Fool’s Day.  The President’s budget was submitted one week later than is required by law (according to The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921), but let’s not quibble over that.  His fellow Democrats still haven’t passed a budget for last year, and the Senate hasn’t given any indication that it is taking our current debt crisis seriously.

The problem with the President’s and the House Republican’s proposed budgets is that they pander to politics rather than address the real world in which the rest of us have to live.

The President’s budget challenges us to believe that we can spend our way out of debt and that the government can do a more effective job of picking “winners” and “losers” from a commerce perspective than the open market.  Raise your hand if you’ve ever successfully lowered your personal debt by spending more money … and please share the name of the fiscally responsible lender who gave you the additional money to do so.  Raise your hand again if you think that government officials know what you want better than you do.  Who needs the open market anyway?

The House Republican’s solution to reduce debt by spending less may make more intuitive sense, but it disregards any consideration of increasing taxes to bring down the debt more quickly.  Think of it this way:  can you reduce your personal debt more rapidly by generating more income through a second job?  Of course, you can!  So, why shouldn’t that option be on the table?

While Michael Moore should never be confused with a Rhodes Scholar, he did recently make a statement that garnered a great deal of attention and is roughly correct:  “Right now, this afternoon, just 400 Americans … have more wealth than half of all Americans combined.  Let me say that again … Four hundred obscenely wealthy individuals, 400 little Mubaraks … most of whom benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008 … now have more cash, stock and property than the assets of 155 million Americans combined.”

The 400 richest Americans have a net worth of approximately $1.4 trillion (extrapolating from the Forbes 400), which is more than the cumulative net worth of the bottom half of our population.  Admittedly, those with negative net worth pull down the average for the bottom half, but the statistic is still staggering.  Perhaps, some sort of progressive tax might be appropriate to consider.

Let’s take a moment to look more closely at the 400 richest people in America.  The 16 individuals who tied for “last” place all have an estimated net worth of $1 billion.  Since we’ve been told that “rich” people make $250,000 a year, let’s do the math.  If you made $250,000 a year, didn’t pay any taxes, and never spent a dime, it would only take you 4,000 years to amass a net worth of $1 billion.  Another way to look at it:  these people have twenty times the net worth of Michael Moore, which is estimated to be $50 million!  Why not have them share more of the burden?

If Michael is right about how most of them “benefited in some way from the multi-trillion-dollar taxpayer bailout of 2008,” why not take some of the money back to accelerate the reduction of our National Debt?

Speaking of documentaries and people benefiting from the taxpayer bailout of Wall Street, you might want to check out Inside Job, which provides a good overview of how the Bush Administration contributed to the economic collapse … and how the Obama Administration has provided senior government positions for many of the perpetrators.

Returning to those 400 really rich people, it’s interesting to note what a “mixed bag” you have.  At the top, Bill and Melinda Gates, along with great support of their friend, Warren Buffet, have created the Gates Foundation.  They have contributed and raised approximately $24.5 billion in grant money ($36.7 billion in endowed assets) for this worthy charity.  Their generosity has almost undoubtedly had more of a beneficial impact on society than any amount of taxes we reasonably could have exacted upon them.

Moving on to #3:  Larry Ellison probably bought a bigger boat.  After all, yachts really should be sized according to ego.

Then, just a little further down the line, we have the Koch Brothers.  They went from #9 in 2009 to #5 in 2010; increasing their respective fortunes from $16 billion to $21.5 billion in only one year.  That’s about a 34% increase from their diversified industry holdings.  How they accomplished that while funneling so much money to Republican and Tea Party candidates to skew the political balance of power and destroy the unions (at least according to Michael Moore) is anybody’s guess!

Luckily, we have George Soros to balance out the political spectrum.  Poor, old George climbed from #28 to #14 on the list while almost doubling his fortune … going from $7.2 billion to $14.2 billion in only one year.  The Koch Brother’s could learn a few things about capitalism from George!

The funny thing about these latter titans of wealth is that the Koch brothers are the darlings of the Right while George Soros is the champion of the Left.  Think about it.  The Koch Brothers run a wide variety of manufacturing companies that provide hundreds of products to, and thousands of jobs for “Main Street” Americans throughout the United States.  Meanwhile, George Soros runs a Wall Street hedge fund that makes obscene money for “qualified investors” (i.e., the “uber-rich” the Left professes to hate).  Just as an aside, he also is credited with making $1 billion in personal income in a single day by orchestrating the collapse of the British pound on September 6, 1992.  According to stereotypes, you’d think the Koch Brothers would be revered by the Left and that Soros would be the poster child of the Right.

Maybe the politicians are “on” to something.  Maybe things are just the exact opposite of what makes sense.  If that’s true, let’s spend our way out of debt and eliminate taxes for everyone.  It doesn’t matter that those two extremes go against every instinct … the world just isn’t what it used to be.  Are we on The Path to Prosperity … or just another path to politics?

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on April 28th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 790 AM, KTIE, Riverside County, from 8:00-9:00 PM.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  T.J. will also be appearing in Dayton, Ohio, at the Armed Forces Family Aid Concert on April 30^th.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                   www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:         http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

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

Tweet the Czar:         @TCSCzar

***** 

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.

Who’s in Charge: Barack H. Bush or George W. Obama?

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., March 29, 2011 – Democrats and Republicans have finally found a point of agreement:  they’re both confused by the President’s positions on Libya, oil drilling and other issues.  We are witnessing a political metamorphosis:  Barack H. Obama is merging with the psyche of George W. Bush to become a hybrid of liberal conservatism.  Or is it conservative liberalism?  We now have a Nobel Peace Prize winner invading Libya without Congressional consent and supporting offshore drilling in Brazil while banning it in the United States.  The whole thing is very confusing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If he did switch parties, I would provide us with yet one more comparison to President Reagan (who formally changed parties in 1962).  Besides, by switching parties, President Obama would be demonstrating true bipartisanship … and possible bi-polarity as well!

If he pulled it off, he might be in a position to win by a landslide in 2012.  The pillagers of the planet and hawks on the Right might find him to be more to their liking, and the Liberals on the Left might be too afraid of appearing “politically incorrect” to vote against him.  The President would have a chance to fool both sides this time!  It’s beginning to make sense to me now.  The man is a genius.  Four more years!  Four more years!

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                        www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:           http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

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

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

*****

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.

Poor Rich Man Michael Moore

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., March 20, 2011 – Movie mogul Michael Moore has been encouraging middle-class Americans to rise up against the evil rich and their minion Governors, first in Wisconsin...now in Michigan,.  As he said on March 5th, "America is not broke.  Not by a long shot.  The country is awash in wealth and cash.  It's just that it’s not in your hands.  It has been transferred, in the greatest heist in history, from the workers and consumers to the banks and the portfolios of the uber-rich ...  The only thing that's broke is the moral compass of the rulers.  And we aim to fix that compass and steer the ship ourselves from now on."  Makes for a good movie … don’t you think?

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

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

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

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

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

• “From Flint & Cleveland, fr Chicago & St. Louis, fr the Twin Cities & beyond, I'm getting tweets texts & emails fr ppl On the Road 2 Madison!

• “Getting msgs fr ppl in Cincy, DesMoines, Indy, Detroit, IowaCity, TraverseCity, Springfield, Toledo: "We're on the road to Madison!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, in fairness to Mr. Moore, I don’t know if he’ll attempt to profit once again off of the backs of the poor middle-class he likes to verbally defend.  I do know that, if he does make a film, millions will flock to see it.  Those who attended the events will go to the movie to see if they’re in it … and they’ll take their friends and family members.  Those who believe that Moore is the bastion of the middle-class will go to the movie to pay homage to their leader.  Others might attend … just to see a movie.

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

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on February 25th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                       www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:          http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

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

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

*****

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.

Radical Truth and the Sin of Incongruity

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., March 14, 2011 – Rep. Peter King is chairing controversial committee hearings about “The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community’s Response” … and some clarification is in order.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s review a few things:

• The far Right supports Right to Life but is in favor of the Death Penalty; whereas the far Left is against the Death Penalty but is okay with the killing of unborn babies.

• The far Right thinks that George Soros is using his money to destroy the Republic but it’s okay for the Koch Brothers to spread some cash around to support the Conservative agenda; whereas the far Left thinks that the Koch Brothers are using their money to destroy the Republic but it’s okay for George Soros to spread some cash around to support the Liberal agenda.

• The far Right thinks that unions are corrupt organizations that are sucking the life out of America but that the selfish practices of “big business” are not a threat; whereas the far Left thinks that “big businesses” are corrupt organizations that are sucking the life out of America but that the selfish practices of unions are not a threat.

• The far Right thinks that it’s okay to infer that Muslims, Mosques, etc. should to be monitored because of the behavior of a few radicals, but that it’s inappropriate to generalize that gun owners are dangerous as a class because of the behavior of a few radicals; whereas, the far Left thinks that it’s okay to infer that gun owners are dangerous as a class because of the behavior of a few radicals, but that it’s inappropriate to generalize that that Muslims, Mosques, etc. should to be monitored because of the behavior of a few radicals.

Get the picture?

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Czar is reminded of two of his father’s adages during The Czar’s formative years:  “An empty barrel makes the most noise” … and “A squeaky wheels gets the most grease.”  If we start to recognize that those who proffer disingenuous intellectual terrorism are really just “empty barrels” … and we can avoid the temptation to instinctively give them “the most grease” (in the form of media attention)

When the current hearings fade away, let’s start a new round:  “The Extent of Radicalization in American Politics and Reasonable Americans’ Response.”  Once we eliminate the sin of Incongruity and accept the radical truth that there are very few “truths” among radicals, we may finally be able to begin to solve our Nation’s problems.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three new books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  He will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on March 25th on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST.  Listen live via the Internet at http://AmatoTalk.com.  Read more of T.J.’s work at The Common Sense Czar in the Communities at the Washington Times.

Website:                        www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

To Order Books:          http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

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

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

 

*****

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.