“Play Ball!”

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 18, 2011 – Outmaneuvered by the Democrats, the Republicans seem destined to play the role of underdogs in America’s favorite national pastime … political baseball.  You can almost hear the call:

“That was a tough inning for the Elephants.  Just when it looked liked they were going to be able to shut the door on the Donkeys, Obama gets his first hit in two-and-a-half years.

“Then, the Elephant’s manager replaced Trump with Gingrich in right field because Trump can’t play defense.  Remember, Trump only started because Huckabee came up lame.  But then, Gingrich didn’t play far enough to the right and made a bad error on weak fly ball on the very next pitch that allowed Obama to score from first.

“Luckily for the Elephants, Chuck Schumer was up next for the Donkeys.  He dug in with an ‘extreme’ stance that made him an easy strikeout victim to end the inning.

“So, the score remains Donkeys 1 … Elephants 0.

“Mitt Romney is already in the on-deck circle.  So, it looks like he may be coming into the game to replace Gingrich in the bottom half of the inning, followed by Pawlenty and Santorum … all of whom have all been ineffective so far against the left-handed pitching of Obama.  The Elephants could bring Ron Paul in as a pinch-hitter, but he probably couldn’t make it to first base unless Obama walked him.

“Cain might be able, but the manager doesn’t seem to want to put him into the game because … rumor has it … he isn’t a team player.

“And Johnson might be done for the day.  He hasn’t had good command of his pitches.  It looks like he’ll be coming out of the game because the Elephants have Bachmann and Palin warming up in the bullpen.

“We’ll be back after this word from our sponsor …”

Tell the truth:  that was a pretty accurate assessment of what has been transpiring in the 2012 Presidential election campaign … only it was more entertaining!

President Obama got Osama bin Laden “out” and the mainstream media wanted him enshrined in the Hall of Fame.  He became “even money” to be beatified along side Pope John Paul II just for that alone.

Donald Trump bowed out of the race for two reasons that suggest that he should never have pretended to be in it.  First, he said that he realized that there may be negative attacks on his family and him.  Apparently, we’re supposed to believe that he just realized this … and that he has ever cared about it in the past.

Secondly, The Donald said, “running for public office cannot be done half-heartedly” and “ultimately … business is my greatest passion, and I am not ready to leave the private sector.”  He clarified his position in another interview in which he said that NBC made him an offer he couldn’t refuse.  It amounted to a $300 million swing if he continued making tough decisions on The Celebrity Apprentice (like whether to fire Gary Busey or Meat Loaf) rather than serving as Leader of the Free World.  Well, as George Bernard Shaw once said, “We’ve already established what you are.  We’re merely haggling over price.”

Speaking of money … back in January on a radio talk show, I predicted that Mike Huckabee would not run for President because he was making more money than he ever could have dreamed; he had a television show that offered a controlled environment and a favorable audience within which to share his political opinion; and he wasn’t putting himself or his family at risk (either emotionally or physically).

Speaking of even more money … Mitt Romney (who, by the way, has a perfect name for a baseball player) raised $10 million in a single fundraising event in Las Vegas this past Monday.  Las Vegas hasn’t been this excited about anything since it looked like Harry Reid might lose his seat in the Senate.

Romney may be the only person in America who can go to the Strip assured of the fact that he’ll leave with a briefcase full of money … and he’s still just “exploring” whether he’ll run.  Of course, maybe this isn’t so much an endorsement of Romney as it is a repudiation of President Obama, who almost single-handedly destroyed the economy of Las Vegas by warning businesses to “stay away” back in 2009.

Newt Gingrich’s self-inflicted wound was a bit of a surprise.  He probably has more political experience than the rest of the field combined.  He also took a long time to “explore” his candidacy before announcing it on Twitter.  Maybe Twitter should have been an omen because it took him less than 140 hours to alienate his Party.  He seems destined to become today’s version of Richard Nixon … except without the title of President before his name.

As far as Pawlenty, Paul, Cain, Johnson, et al. are concerned, they’d be better off if the Republican nomination was part of the Triple Crown.  At least then, you could “bet the field” in hope that one of them could win.  Otherwise, the odds aren’t in their favor.

Does this mean that the game is over and that President Obama should, by proclamation, be given another term?  Absolutely not!  That’s why we have elections.

Our economy is in shambles; our foreign policy is a wreck; our education system needs to be revamped; and healthcare reform needs to be … well … reformed!

And what happened to “Change?”  Bipartisan support deteriorated because of a pronounced tendency to blame others (particularly anyone named “Bush”); blame, in turn, destroyed any hope of a new level of accountability; and the promise of transparency was inexplicably explored behind closed doors.  Does anyone really believe that a non-partisan examination of the record won’t reveal glaring deficiencies in the “Hope” and “Change” that’s been delivered?

There was a promise of “Hope” in the last Presidential election.  Perhaps there will be real “Hope” in the 2012 campaign.  It’s hard to see much of it among the present group of candidates, but not everyone is in the race yet.  Somewhere out there, there is a candidate who, like an innocent child, may tell all these want-to-be Emperors that they aren’t wearing any clothes.  Now, that’s the kind of “draft” to which we can all relate.  Let’s just hope we get to hear “the naked truth.”

*****

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.

To Order Books, go to:  http://tinyurl.com/2a9rztg

Website:                           www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

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

Tweet The Czar:             @TCSCzar

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

***** 

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.

With Allies Like This …

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 11, 2011 – As we continue to provide foreign aid to Pakistan, our “ally” may be harboring terrorists and auctioning off our technology.  Osama bin Laden was killed in a million-dollar residence located about a mile from Pakistan’s military academy and only 35 miles from its capital.  Of course, other than the fact that the compound was eight-times larger than any surrounding building, that it was surrounded by high walls topped with barbed wire, that it lacked of any type of communication utilities whatsoever, that food was delivered to the compound each week, and that its inhabitants burned their refuse each week rather than allowing their garbage to be collected … who possibly could have guessed that the infamous Osama bin Laden might have been hiding there?

Pakistan’s government has created a whole new genre of diplomacy called “implausible denial.”  Rather than defend its actions … or lack thereof, Pakistan has taken an offensive tact (and you can take the word “offensive” two ways and be right both times). 

It has castigated the United States for having gone after Osama bin Laden without its permission.  Of course, we’re too “politically correct” to have pushed back hard on the fact that the Pakistani government was either knowingly harboring the international terrorist or that its “intelligence” organization represents the most incompetent such organization on the face of the planet.  Perhaps ISI actually stands for Incredibly Stupid and Inept.  That would explain a lot.

However, Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani dismissed that thought by stating, “Allegations of complicity or incompetence are absurd.”  Then again, Pakistan might just have lower standards.  They probably just need a little more foreign aid to improve their level of performance.

Next, Pakistani officials took custody of three of Osama bin Laden’s wives who had been staying in the compound.  Then, the Pakistani government prevented our intelligence officers from having access to the wives for purposes of interrogating them.

Essentially, that precluded us from reading the women their Miranda rights and offering them “a $6 million book deal” to get them to talk (at least, that was the type of “coercion” well-known international intelligence expert, Joy Behar, recently recommended on The View).  Then, if they didn’t talk, The Real Housewives of Abbottabad would have been forced to do cameo appearances on Sister Wives until they broke.  Who says we can’t get tough when we need to?  We know how to keep America safe!

Continuing in the spirit of cooperation, a Pakistani TV channel and newspaper published the name of someone they purported to be our undercover CIA Station Chief in Islamabad.  We denied that the individual was our Station Chief so … no harm, no foul!

Numerous Pakistani officials waved their collective fingers at the United States and threatened to bring the full force of their nation’s military against us if we ever ventured into their country again without permission.  Rest assured … that must have soiled the uniforms of our Joint Chiefs of Staff.  After all, some people lose control when they can’t stop laughing hysterically.

And finally, in a complete display of respect and support, the Pakistani government appears to be ready to auction off our Top Secret stealth helicopter; the highly-modified H-60 that was left behind in the raid and only partially destroyed.  It appears that China will be the high bidder.

We really shouldn’t be concerned.  We already owe China a lot of money.  It might have demanded the specs to the helicopter as collateral for any future loans we’ll ask it to make after we raise our debt ceiling.  Besides, China doesn’t pose a military threat to us.  It’s our ally … just like Pakistan!

Maybe we should raise the amount of foreign aid we provide to Pakistan.  That might improve our two countries’ “delicate” relationship (as it’s been described).  It’s been a year and a half since we tripled it under the Obama Administration and the leadership of Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, John Kerry.  Let’s just triple it again.

We’ve written checks to Pakistan in excess of $20 billion over the last decade, but look at what we’ve gotten in return.  They’ve only voted against our position in the United Nations 75% of the time over the years.  Just think of how bad it would have been if we hadn’t tried to bribe them!

Seriously though, I think we should respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and withdraw our troops and economic support from its country.  We should do the same with respect to all of those countries that revile our presence and assistance.  Let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they can find their own solutions.

After all, terrorists have said for years that it is our occupation of Islamic territories that offends them, and if we would withdraw, they would stop killing us.  Let’s take them at their word and follow the teachings in my book, The National Platform of Common Sense, (extended to Pakistan): 

“This Platform calls for a phased withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq … on an undisclosed timetable.  I think we have helped those countries to the degree that we can.  And within the context of ‘you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink’ … it’s time to see if the horse is thirsty.  This position will improve our relationships with a few foreign countries (for those who care); it will bring our troops home and take them out of harm’s way; and it will allow us to redirect our time and energy to solving our country’s prob­lems.  The billions of dollars that can be redirected toward ap­propriate Federal programs and to retire national debt will come at time when we have a great need to conserve cash.

“Of course, there are those who will say that withdrawal from these foreign lands will bring the War Against Terror to our own shores.  This Platform is quite sensitive to that.  As a re­sult, it also calls for a policy to be put in place and communi­cated clearly to the rest of the world:  “Don’t Tread On Us!”  More specifically:

“To Whom It May Concern: Any act of aggression against the United States or its citizens will be dealt with swiftly and severely. We will not ask for any other country’s permission … or wait for a consensus of support. We will respond dispro­portionately to any act of terrorism and use every resource available to us to completely eliminate the root cause … as we would with any other plague that might threaten the ‘Life, Lib­erty and pursuit of Happiness’ of which our citizens are guaran­teed.”

Problem solved!  I’m The Common Sense Czar, and I approve of this message

*****

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.

OBL’s Terrorist Show Canceled

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., May 2, 2011 – Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network was canceled ... permanently.  Reminiscent of a scene from The Godfather, Seal Team Six performs a “hit” that cut off the head of al-Qaeda.  OBL is dead; killed in a well-executed, covert operation in Pakistan.  Our hearts go out to the survivors of those who lost their lives on 9/11 … for even this action cannot bring back their loved ones.  The reality is that the only thing the world can celebrate is having one less maniac who is more than willing to kill innocent men, women and children while hiding behind the veil of his personal interpretation of religion.

President Obama deserves credit for a job well done.  While the “break” in the hunt for bin Laden came in August, he took a measured approach and waited until more intelligence was available and Seal Team Six had time to prepare and practice the operation.  As a result, the objective was achieved without the loss of an American life.

The President’s speech was well-crafted from a strategic perspective and delivered with appropriate decorum.  He addressed the relevant issues, acknowledged the appropriate parties, and walked the delicate tight-rope of international politics to mitigate any potential backlash against the United States.  In his private actions, President Obama thoughtfully communicated with former President Bush as well as with senior Congressional leaders.

Because an action of this nature also raises the possibility of reprisal, we can only trust that alternative scenarios have been assessed and that preventative measures are already being deployed.  As the President pointed out on multiple occasions in his speech, the “war” isn’t over.

Which brings us to today’s talking point:  who on the Right will use this issue to demean President Obama in some way … and who on the Left will use it to demean the Right?  Our country has many problems.  This is an opportunity to determine whether you contribute to them.

For the most part, the media has treated the subject fairly.  With the exception of the networks’ apparent need to bring in “experts” to embellish on the facts with nothing more than personal conjecture, coverage has been fairly balanced.  Political officials on both sides of the aisle have been quick to praise the operation and the President’s role in it.

Yet, if you read the comment sections of many public forums, you get an entirely different perspective.  “Fringe” Conservatives deride the fact that the President took any credit for the operation.  They want him to acknowledge that President Bush laid the groundwork for the demise of Osama bin Laden.  The fact is that the critical intelligence didn’t surface until August of 2010; nearly two years after President Bush left office.  So, it is quite a stretch to suggest that President Bush should receive any credit for the operation.  He didn’t have the information; he didn’t participate in the briefings; and he didn’t make the final decision.

Correspondingly, “fringe” Liberals deride President Bush’s “failure” to capture or kill Osama bin Laden and think that President Obama should be acknowledged as a political genius for having achieved that goal.  The reality is that the information didn’t exist until August of 2010 and neither President personally developed the intelligence.  That’s not what President’s do.

Would President Bush have acted upon the information in a similar manner?  We’ll never know.  Just as we will never know if President Obama would have been as effective as President Bush was in the latter’s strong response to the tragedy of 9/11.  The proper measure of a President is the leadership they demonstrate at any given moment in time with the information that is available.

For those on the Right who “fear” that this will help President Obama in his reelection campaign, let it go!  Would you rather have had Osama bin Laden escape just so your roulette wheel of Presidential candidates could have a better chance at unseating the President?  That’s about as “patriotic” as hoping that our Nation will sustain terrorist attacks in response to the killing of bin Laden just so that you can use it as an argument against President Obama’s reelection.

For those on the Left who have hastily resurrected President Bush’s quote (completely out of context), “I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority,” you may wish to temper your enthusiasm.  He also said, “The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden.   It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.”

You see, Presidential quotes are often contradictory … particularly when their quotes are taken out of context.  For example, President Obama “declared an end (to) the war on terror” on January 21, 2009, when he issued an Executive Order to close Guantanamo.  Yet last evening, he referenced that specific “war” four times in his speech. 

If you need more examples, President Obama previously stated that the United States shall not “continue with a false choice between our safety and our ideals" and that we shall “restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism.”  Based upon the information that is available, the President issued a “kill” order that directed Seal Team Six to kill Osama bin Laden rather than to capture him.  Does anyone see the incongruity between words and actions?

Of course, I just can’t wait for the “birthers” to jump on the potential “burial-a-sea” issue.  How long will it be before we hear:  “How can we know that Osama bin Laden was really killed?  They buried him at sea so that no one could ever confirm it was him.  It’s just another conspiracy to get President Obama reelected.”  Please … I beg you … don’t go there.

There are three primary political “movements” afoot in the United States.  The Conservative movement wants to preserve the status quo or at least slow the pace of change to assure that proper due diligence is done.  The Progressive movement wants to evolve society more rapidly with hope that such change is beneficial.  True Conservatives and Progressives both want to improve the country.  They only differ with respect to time and tack.

It is the third movement that is of more concern.  It is a new movement comprised of those who gravitate toward the outer orbits of the two more mainstream movements.  I call it the Destructive movement.  Its members embrace emotional arguments that singularly support their positions (be they far Left or far Right).   They never let facts get in the way.  The political landscape is simply “black and white” from their perspective … and for some of them … that can be taken literally.

Charlie Sheen might be their candidate of choice because the Destructives only care about “winning.”   They really don’t distinguish between “right” and “wrong because they are blinded by their beliefs.  One polar extreme of the Destructives wanted President Bush to fail because they hated him; the other polar extreme seeks the same fate for President Obama … for the same reason.  Going overboard isn’t a good thing … just ask Osama bin Laden.

As Rodney King once said, “Can’t we all just get along?”  The killing of Osama bin Laden raises legitimate emotions and concerns (e.g., a reminder of 9/11 … and the question of how he possibly could have been “hiding” 35 miles outside of the capital of Pakistan, etc.).  For many, it also raises illegitimate emotions and concerns.

This is an outstanding opportunity to look in a mirror.  What’s your political motivation.?  Are you inclined to use this event to disparage President Obama or Progressives?  Are you inclined to use it to disparage President Bush or Conservatives?  To paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, “You might be a Destructive if …”  Think about it.

I’m the Common Sense Czar, and I approve of this message.

*****

T.J. O’Hara is a political satirist, media personality and author of three best-selling books:  The Left isn’t Right, The Right is Wrong, and The National Platform of Common Sense.  For more information, go to:

Website:                        www.TheCommonSenseCzar.net

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

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

Tweet the Czar:            @TCSCzar

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

*****

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

Forgive Our Debtors … For They Know Not What They Do

RANCHO SANTA FE, CA., April 21, 2011 – During the Easter season, I couldn’t help thinking about the phrase “forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors.”  Perhaps that phrase should guide when it comes to our elected officials’ inability to address the issue of our National Debt in a cogent way.  Then again, I rather doubt that they will ever “forgive us our debts.”

Perhaps the President and our Congressional leaders haven’t had time to read their copies of The National Platform of Common Sense.  They’ve been too busy pandering to their constituencies.  At the risk of saying, “I told you so,” I offer the following excerpts from a relevant section of my book:

“If we have it, we will spend it.”  That seems to be the mantra of our Legislative Branch of government.  As a corollary, we can add the Democratic dogma:  “If we don’t have it, we will spend it anyway.”  In the past, the power to tax has been the secret weapon of both Parties.  Democrats use it to get votes by promising to only tax the rich to fund programs for everyone else.  Republi­cans use it to get votes by claiming that they will protect the public against pernicious taxation.  Here’s the reality:

“Republican candidates routinely promise that they’re not going to raise taxes … not on you as an individual or on businesses in general (one of their few reliable constituencies) … because taxes negatively impact the economy. “Read my lips … no new taxes.” It’s a clear and intentional misrepresentation. If cutting taxes stimulates the economy, why not eliminate all taxes? Oh, yeah … then we couldn’t pay for government salaries, perks, offices, boondoggle trips, etc.  Scratch that idea!  I guess some taxes are okay.  But the one thing about Republicans is that they can do the math.  If they can’t pay their debts, they’ll raise your taxes regardless of what they’ve promised.  They’ll just do it under the guise of necessity.

“The Democrats are far more forthright on this issue. They’re going to raise your taxes under any circumstances because they’re sure they can create some kind of social program to spend the money … no matter how much is available.  Normally, this would turn off a lot of people, but the Democrats always promise to only tax the rich.  Robin Hood would be so proud!  You see, the rich are really just like the Sheriff of Nottingham who, as we all know, wrongfully took money from the poor by abusing his power … kind of like Congress does.

“And when the Democrats promise to only tax the rich … well, that’s “Change We Can Believe In.”  For example:  when President Obama raised the cigarette tax 62 cents per pack just about a month after taking office, I was all for it.  You see, I don’t smoke … and even if I did … I’m not rich!  I’m feeling to­tally Democratic about this one.  Apparently, only the rich smoke.  Either that … or the President was just “blowing smoke” when he promised not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250 thousand a year.  But who could ac­cuse him of that when he sets an appropriate example for the rest of us by smoking and earning more than $250 thousand a year. That’s stepping up to the plate!

“Correspondingly, when President Obama was running against President Bush (let’s face it, he might as well have been since that was the entire basis of his campaign), he excoriated the former President for presiding over a $2.5 trillion expansion of our national debt (which, by the way, President Obama voted for when he was in the Senate).  Then, as soon as he took office, he es­sentially doubled that level of expansion.  With this level of spending, Presi­dent Obama will be hard pressed to keep his campaign promise to only increase taxes on the richest 5 percent of our population while reducing taxes for everyone else … unless there is an expansion of the money supply.  Our inability as voters to recognize the mathematical certainty of this demon­strates why so few contestants ever win on the game show Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?  As a result, you can expect the government to increase the money supply to close the gap.

“Now, since our currency isn’t really backed by anything (we went off the gold standard back in 1975), expanding the cash supply really doesn’t hurt us in any way … unless you consider the impact of inflation.  You see, if the gov­ernment prints a lot of money to pay for all of the new social programs and agencies that it’s putting in place, the law of supply and demand suggests that, as the monetary supply grows, the dollar will be devalued.  So, some­thing that costs a dollar today will cost more than a dollar tomorrow if every­thing adjusts to stay the same (i.e., to maintain the dynamic equilibrium of the economy).  Luckily, this will only impact the richest 5 percent of our popula­tion since President Obama promised that only they would suffer a tax in­crease.

“Now, why do I say that?  Well, taxes are just a method of paying for gov­ernment programs.  If the money supply has to be manipulated to pay for government programs, isn’t the resultant inflation, in effect, a tax?  I can’t wait to see how President Obama makes sure that only the food, drink, housing, clothing, etc. of the rich gets adjusted for inflation.  Otherwise, he will have broken his promise to 95 percent of Americans who thought they were get­ting the deal of the century!  I can see it now:  I’ll be going through a checkout line, and the clerk will ask me to produce some sort of National Identification card that will let him or her know that I’m not one of the top 5 percent.  Bingo!  I’ll either get a discount, or I’ll get to avoid paying a premium since we’ve been promised that all these new programs will only impact the pocket books of the rich.  Either way, it’s good to know that most of us will be insulated against the effect of runaway inflation.”

(The National Platform of Common Sense continues …)

“The best way to destroy the “Field of Dreams” mentality that is so preva­lent in Washington, D.C. is to restrict Congress’ cash flow … as was intended by the Framers when they spelled out the limitations relative to the Legislative Branch’s “Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Ex­cises” in Article I, Section 8. So, this Platform requires Congress to follow the Constitution as it was written.

(At this point, The National Platform of Common Sense draws upon a myriad of solutions that are discussed in detail in its previous sections and then continues …)

“This Platform also calls for the introduction of an indexed budget for Congress; whether it be indexed to the Gross Do­mestic Product (GDP), the number of citizens in the United States, or some other blended formula that relates to the size of our economy and our population base.  As our country ex­pands or contracts in both terms of its economy and popula­tion, so should the government’s budget in proportion thereto.  Other than in times of an unexpected national emergency (e.g., a war, legitimate pandemic, terrorist attack, etc.), there would be no other way to infuse the government with money (other than by utilizing past budgetary surpluses); no additional taxa­tion, no printing of money … nothing!  The country’s over-draft protection could begin with a proportionate reduction in the wages of the Federal government.  Since they’re in control of their spending on our dime, they should feel the pinch first.  This marks the end of La Dolce Vita.”

(continuing …)

• “Let’s determine what would be a reasonable indexed operating budget for the government and work backwards from there to calculate the correct percentage to apply to everyone … equally.  If you don’t have any income of any kind, you don’t pay any taxes.  Otherwise, we’ll all have the same skin in the game.

•  “Let’s simplify the process while we’re at it.  First, let’s elimi­nate all of the deductions (both business and personal).  That will streamline the calculation.  And don’t worry about what will happen when you lose the deductions that you’ve grown to view as an entitlement.  In all actuality, they’re merely tools by which politicians manipulate us.  Remem­ber:  we’re working backwards when we do the math, so the infusion of tax dollars from the elimination of deductions will help reach the budgetary objective sooner and, in turn, will reduce the overall percentage that you’ll be charged.

•  “The elimination of deductions should help in a variety of ways. Individual and business decisions will become more legitimately based.  Charity may even return to the heart rather than emanate from the tax return.  Millions of trees will be saved.  How, you ask?  Well, if Congress doesn’t spend a lot of time adding thousands of pages to each bill it drafts to account for the special interests it panders to through tax deductions and credits, millions of trees will be saved.  This could be the environmental solution of our lifetime.  Mem­bers of the Green Party … Unite!

• “Similarly, if Congress is limited to a single way of generat­ing tax revenues, just think of how much time and money will be saved and how that time and money can be redi­rected to important issues … rather than on the negotiation of backroom deals and the distribution of pork.  IRS staffing can be reduced (and) the “business of the People” can be properly addressed …”

• “Businesses will pay upon the distribution of both passive and active income.  They will reserve the appropriate per­centage on any distributed income and pay that sum to the government according to a uniform schedule.  As a result, individuals will no longer have to file any kind of income tax form.  How terrific will that be?  (Sorry, H&R Block!)  And to mitigate the chance of misconduct, the penalties for im­proper reporting will be swift and significant (including fines and imprisonment).

(continuing …)

“…The beauty is that it’s clean, simple to administer, and treats everyone fairly.  Yes, there is a “price of admission” to be a citizen of the United States; no one gets a “free ride.”  As a collateral benefit, your vote can no longer be bought by political promises.  Wel­come back to the Republic!”

As I reflect upon the past several years, I am stunned at how often the phrase “I told you so” would be fair comment.  I am equally disappointed that our elected officials seem to have such a difficult identifying the obvious.  I guess we should just “forgive them for they know not what they do.”

*****

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.

• On April 28th, he will be the Guest Host of The Rick Amato Show on 1170 AM, KCBQ, San Diego, from 7:00-8:00 PM PST and 590 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 30th.

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.

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.