Since 2001, Japan had levied the highest combined corporate tax rate among the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries at 39.5 percent. They recently lowered their rate to 38.01 percent, which according to a study by the Tax Foundation puts Japan’s rate below America’s combined federal and state rate of 39.2 percent — the highest in the world.

What does this mean for America’s job picture? Our job creators have fewer financial resources to work with as they struggle to hire more employees. It also creates new incentives for U.S. companies to outsource more jobs overseas where tax rates are lower and the investment climate more welcoming.

This has become a self-fulfilling prophecy of the bashers of business. They rail as unpatriotic and traitorous those companies that find shelter overseas from excessive taxes and regulations. But at the same time, they create the conditions that make it impossible to successfully invest and grow a business in the United States.

The latest figures from the U.S. Department of Commerce indicate while American multinational employers increased their domestic work force by just 0.1 percent, they expanded their overseas employment by 1.5 percent.

This is a foreboding trend at a time when the private sector decreased the U.S. work force by 0.6 percent.

The Wall Street Journal estimates that U.S.-based multinationals account for about one-fifth of private employment in the U.S., with 23 million U.S. workers and 11 million in majority-owned affiliates overseas. Capital spending overseas by U.S. companies rose 8.6 percent to $173 billion.

Imagine what an additional $173 billion would mean to the U.S. economy.

What’s worse is that since 1999, U.S.-based multinationals have cut U.S. employment by about 1 million, but added 3 million workers overseas.
That’s a 39 percent increase in foreign based employees!

Meanwhile, foreign companies cut their employment in the U.S. by one percent to 5.2 million in 2010, while reducing capital spending in the United States by 1.7 percent.

As long as American companies don’t have confidence to invest in their business because of high taxes, unemployment and underemployment will continue to haunt some 25 million Americans.

One reason for this tax disaster is that the Obama administration continues to castigate business owners as greedy, rich fat cats. Since he has never owned a business, nor have the vast majority of people on his staff, (only 8 percent of the political appointees in the Obama Administration have had any sort of business experience), they simply don’t understand that business owners don’t sit on their cash dreaming about a yacht. Instead, they reinvest their money back into their business.

High corporate taxes kill job creation, kill innovation, and put the American dream out of reach for today’s entrepreneurs and small businesses, which account for over 70 percent of all new jobs created over the last decade.

Lest you think outsourcing jobs is all about wages, it’s not. Hourly rates are creeping up steadily overseas, while productivity and product quality are taking a dive.

As I write this piece, I am presently in South China and was astonished to learn wages are now nearly $3.00 an hour for unskilled workers and growing 20 percent a year. Yet, there is a significant shortage of labor. This is forcing manufacturers to move further inland where there is very little infrastructure.

One local Chinese manufacturer informed me he has to move his production of export goods to Thailand because the quality in his China plant is below international standards. He doesn’t feel conditions will change until he has access to better quality materials.

American wages have been at a virtual standstill for years, yet our productivity is soaring and the quality of American goods has never been higher. The world wants what America produces.

Back-shoring (bringing foreign jobs back to America) has been showing momentum, but it will stop dead in its tracks if our corporate tax rate cannot be brought under control. We should be using our tax code as an incentive to create jobs not as a spoiler.

We want to be number one in job creation, innovation, exports, and support for entrepreneurs and small businesses. We don’t want, and cannot, remain the world’s number one in corporate tax rates.

It puts us at a significant global disadvantage which is bad for all Americans.

There have been two recent situations where secrets are being compromised — both of which will compromise job creation.

The first surrounds the supposed secret deliberations by the Supreme Court over Obamacare. The cost of implementation and compliance with a government controlled healthcare system will be staggering. The estimates escalate each time another layer of regulation is peeled back. Ultimately, this heavy burden will be passed on to American businesses in the form of higher insurance premiums and taxes.

The consequence is that companies are not hiring new employees and will start reducing staff to afford the mandates. This only prolongs the anxiety, pain and suffering of the 25 million Americans that are unemployed or underemployed.

Two days after the Supreme Court heard arguments on both sides of the issue, as is their custom, the justices convened a secret session of deliberations in their chambers. During this time, the justices take an initial non-binding vote and the writing of opinions is assigned. These meetings are restricted to the nine justices and their clerks, and are at the core of the foundation of the Judicial Branch.

Yet, the week after the deliberations began, President Barack Obama took to the airwaves and seemed to come unglued in an ignorant rant that criticized the justices and cast aspersions on the very process.

I don’t normally subscribe to conspiracy theories, but in this case, one has to wonder whether the president was informed the majority vote was to strike down his signature legislative accomplishment in these supposedly secret meetings. He certainly acted like someone in serious trouble as he went on the offensive for some damage control.

This would make a mockery of the secret deliberations and diminishes the office of the president. There’s a reason the founding fathers separated the Executive Branch from the Judicial Branch to prevent this kind of corruption of the Supreme Court’s role as the defender and ultimate interpreter of our Constitution.

An equally menacing corruption of secrets is taking place in the work force. Unions are trying to push through Card Check, even though it was resoundingly defeated when presented to Congress.

As a reminder, Card Check gets rid of the sanctity of the secret ballot, which is fundamental to American democracy. It forces employees to divulge their vote publicly when union elections are being held in a place of business.

The corruption of the secret vote — a constitutional right — is being promoted so unions can intimidate workers and force them to accept unionization even if they object.

This insidious process forces companies into a game of chance where the game is rigged and the house (unions) has the advantage.

Workers that had not previously wanted to be unionized are beset by union representatives that demand that employees vote to unionize. Unions force employers to hand over the names of all employees including home addresses, home and cell phone numbers and personal email addresses.

Then union representatives begin badgering employees at their homes to determine how they will vote. This process strongly portends that reprisals will be waged upon those that don’t fall into line with union demands.

Meanwhile, employers that have been blindsided by the union’s encroachment must scramble to estimate the costs, retain legal counsel, create an alternative plan to unionization and meet with employees to make their case.

This current process calls for union elections to take place within 40 days of contact by the union, even though the NLRB estimates that 90 percent of union elections take at least 56 days. And now unions are trying to impose a policy whereby union elections must take place within 7-10 days, giving employers a distinct disadvantage. It takes employers out of the game.

Ending the secret ballot starts with union elections, but could soon spill over into local or national elections. If history has taught us anything, when the people lose their ability to retain the secret vote, an empire cannot stand.

The historical record for the secret ballot traces back to ancient Rome, where the laws regulating elections were collectively known as Tabellariae Leges, the first of which was introduced in 139 BC. The French Constitution of 1795 states that “All elections are to be held by secret ballot.”

In the United Kingdom, the secret ballot was introduced in the Ballot Act 1872, and the United States adopted the secret ballot in 1891. The first president of the United States elected completely under the secret ballot was President Grover Cleveland in 1892.

James Buchanan, our 15th president once wrote: “The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among free men.”

You would think that after 100 years of presidents respecting secret ballots and judicial deliberations, that our current president, a supposed constitutional lawyer, would have understood the sanctity of this constitutional right.

If we do nothing more than restore the tenets of the constitution in this election by electing a new president, then we will have come a long way toward establishing an environment for vigorous job creation while strengthening our democracy and rule of government.

Small and medium-sized American companies generate the overwhelming percentage of this creativity, filing 13 more patents per employee than large corporations do.

Meanwhile, the core copyright industries alone (not including the broader sector) lead all major industry sectors in U.S. exports and have grown three times faster than the overall economy in the past 20 years. Core copyright industries are those that create copyrighted works as their primary product, including motion pictures, music, software and publishing.

Our intellectual property (IP) is in demand everywhere around the globe.

Unfortunately, not everyone who demands our IP cares to pay for it.

Shutting down the theft of this property – especially if we were able contain one particular country — would have an overwhelmingly positive impact on job creation and the American economy.

The country most notoriously connected to IP theft is China, which according to a 2009 report issued by the U.S. International Trade Commission, found:

“Chinese IPR infringement and indigenous innovation policies largely block U.S. firms from China’s enormous government procurement market. These policies cost the U.S. IP-intensive economy that conducted business in China in 2009 an estimated $48.2 billion in sales, royalties, or license fees. Moreover, the Commission found that if China raised its IPR protection and enforcement efforts to comparable U.S. levels, this would translate into approximately 923,000 new jobs for U.S. IP-intensive firms.”

Now comes word of another country condoning IP theft, this time from India. India effectively ended Bayer Corp.’s monopoly on a patented cancer drug, licensing a much cheaper generic under a unique law aimed at keeping costs affordable. Bayer Corp., a subsidiary of the German pharma giant, is located in Pittsburgh, Pa.

According to the AP, “In a decision likely to upset Western pharmaceuticals, India’s patent office approved Natco Pharma Ltd.’s application to produce soreinib, a kidney and liver cancer treatment.”

The Indian ministry has decided that a right cannot be absolute and the Indian patent office can force companies to grant licenses to generics in cases of public emergency or where they can show patented products are priced out of reach.

The AP notes that this is the first case of compulsory licensing under India’s unique patent laws passed in 2005 and only one other nation (Thailand) has ever issued such a compulsory ruling.

It also reported that Western pharmaceutical companies have been pushing for stronger patent protections and rules to clamp down on a $26 billion Indian generics industry they say is overstepping intellectual property rights.

This is all the more troublesome because we already have a U.S. goods trade deficit with India of $4.7 billion in 2009. U.S goods exports in 2009 were $16.5 billion, down 6.9 percent from the previous year. Corresponding U.S. imports from India were $21.2 billion, down 17.6 percent. India is currently the 17th largest export market for U.S. goods.

We have a trade deficit with India and they reward our loyalty by trashing our patents and intellectual property? That’s not fair play and that’s not how America should conduct business.

To get a feel for how duplicitous this Indian IP grab is, according to the Business in India website: “The importance of intellectual property in India is well established at all levels — statutory, administrative and judicial. India ratified the agreement with the World Trade Organization (WTO). This Agreement, inter-alia, contains an Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) which came into force from 1st January 1995.”

This agreement specifically covers copyrights and related rights and trade marks.

If other nations around the world see this ruling by India as a license to follow suit, we could see U.S. IP and patents under attack in other countries.

The United States must fight back. It starts with the Import Administration and the Patent and Trademark Office, divisions of the U.S. Department of Commerce, who are dedicated to enforcing our international commerce agreements. But they are woefully understaffed.

We need to invest in a dramatic increase in the legal personnel in these trade-enforcement groups and we must give them the resources they need to deal with the enormity of the problem.

When nations such as India and China steal our intellectual property, they are stealing from American companies, their employees, and from the American people.

This should become an issue vital to every American. Our economy suffers, our employment picture suffers, and our prestige suffers when our patents are ignored.

As a result, the American consumer pays more for just about everything as nations around the world get a free ride on everything from pharmaceuticals to software.

Don’t ignore this issue.

While the AFL-CIO will certainly support Obama and Democrats, they are not generating the kind of money that Democratic presidential candidates are used to receiving. And they certainly are not as enthusiastic as they were in 2008, when unions gave $400 million to Obama and congressional Democrats.

Last year, labor political action committees gave federal Democratic candidates and committees $21 million. But this was 20 percent from the same period in the 2008 election cycle, according to a Chicago Tribune story

Consider the irony that Obama faces. He has given labor unions everything they have asked for, and more, particularly in Detroit, and they still want more.

In the 2009 bailout, Chrysler and GM received about $60 billion between them. Besides preventing the auto companies from going into organized bankruptcy, Obama essentially gave control of the companies to the trade unions. The foxes guarding the hen house analogy comes quickly to mind.

Now they are withholding their financial support until they can squeeze out more concessions from the Obama administration. Unions are demanding that America get into a trade war with China over the price of imported auto parts.

Do you want to know why the U.S. can’t compete with China over auto parts pricing? Yep, you guessed it. Because trade union salaries and benefits which are not in line with other U.S. industries are driving up the costs of production.

Unions also are angry at Obama for passing the South Korea, Colombia and Panama free trade agreements, which are expected to increase U.S. exports by at least $13 billion and add at least $10 billion to U.S. Gross Domestic Product per year. Most importantly, these trade agreements could create 250,000 U.S. jobs.

This also does not take into account the impact it will have on the more than 80 percent of U.S. exporters to South Korea, Colombia, and Panama who are small and medium-sized enterprises that exported $12 billion to those countries in 2008.

Here again, the duplicity of unions comes into play. They seem to ignore the U.S. jobs that will be created because of these agreements since they won’t all be union jobs. In this economy, with some 25 million Americans unemployed and underemployed, can we afford to turn our backs on the creation of good paying jobs? That seems selfish and self-serving to me.

So Obama has found out what other presidents have found out: if you play with unions, they will burn you.

The word is that unions are not writing large checks to the Democratic Party. Instead, they are seeking more independence and leverage, by financing their own initiatives, such as beating back candidates that they believe don’t support their agenda. They are also starting their own Super PACS. Before the advent of Super PACS in 2008, Union PACS gave $73 million directly to candidates, 92 percent of which went to Democrats.

Yes, unions will support Obama this year, but the Democratic Party is not likely to see the full court press they saw in 2008. That’s good news for Republicans who are amassing unprecedented contributions in their Super PACS.

How successful are Republican Super PACS? Democrats are trying to end them because they can’t keep up with the numbers. Yet, Democrats have no concerns about the millions they get from labor unions who want to make it easier to unionize by scrapping the secret ballot.

And Democrats aren’t likely to eliminate the contributions from trial lawyers, who overwhelmingly support their candidates, which want to make it easier to win huge settlements for frivolous lawsuits therefore driving up insurance premiums.

After all, both of these special interests hurt our job creators in serious and significant ways.

If Republicans are looking for more good news, it’s that the traditional liberal Democratic base in Hollywood is sitting on the sidelines. Unlike the Republicans, the Hollywood crowd isn’t enamored with Super PACs, and are not donating big money to the Obama Super PAC and to the Democratic Party.

That’s not to say that Obama won’t receive their support. Hollywood celebs will give individual donations, but the limit is controlled by election laws, unlike Super PACS.

The loss of financial support among two traditional Democratic power bases should embolden Republicans and their donors. Republicans are finding renewed fundraising success through Super PACS and other means, and when the Republican nominee is ultimately selected (which will be Mitt Romney), he will need the financial power to get the Republican message out to defeat Obama.

The Democratic Party is vulnerable this election. Americans need to seize the initiative and get this ship of state headed in the right direction. We need a President who is more concerned about job creation and the plight of the common man than about job preservation of a Democratic administration.

The survey found 5 percent of current manufacturing jobs are unfilled due to lack of qualified candidates, 67 percent of manufacturers have a moderate to severe shortage of qualified workers, and 56 percent expect the shortage to increase in the next three to five years as older workers retire.

Most of these unfilled jobs are in the skilled production category — positions such as machinists, operators, craft workers, logistics managers and technicians.

How did the U.S. manufacturing industry – historically and currently the worldwide leader in manufacturing — lose its mojo? (Yes, the United States is the largest manufacturing country in the world and until recently the largest exporter). There are 14 million unemployed U.S. workers while there are more than a half –million job vacancies.

How did we get into this situation?

It comes down to two largely preventable trends.

The first is that the U.S. manufacturing industry has done a lousy PR job to attract today’s work force. Most people still envision workers bathed in sweat manually hauling raw materials to create appliances, cars, steel and other durable goods. But that no longer represents today’s manufacturing.

Advanced Manufacturing is the buzzword today. The Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration’s definition is as follows: “Advanced Manufacturing is the accelerated use of high-tech processes in the manufacturing plant.”

That means manufacturing workers today are relying on computerization, robotics and emerging technologies. This requires brain power, not brawn. This is the stuff that workers in the 20th century could never even imagine.

This is a story about innovation and creativity that isn’t being told to today’s younger workforce. It’s time that U.S. manufacturers sponsor road shows across the country to excite young people about manufacturing. They have a good story to tell: great jobs, great compensation and benefits, and great opportunities. And this must begin today if we are to catch up to the needs we face in filling high tech manufacturing jobs.

This takes us to the second preventable trend: taking the onus off of trade and technical schools. At one time, the U.S. had apprentice programs where workers trained to become craftsmen and skilled artisans. Yesterday’s apprentice programs are today’s trade and technical schools.

Unlike traditional colleges, where students must complete a wide variety of courses, many of which are unrelated to their desired jobs, a trade school offers a highly focused curriculum devoted exclusively to preparing a student for their job of choice. A trade school student will generally earn their degree in a shorter amount of time than in a traditional college and at a much lower cost.

Yet, even as enrollment in trade schools is increasing, the Obama administration seeks to reduce funding for vocational training by 20 percent, while concentrating primarily on the Pell Grant program that offers financial aid for college and university attendance. If you look at the millions of college graduates that are unemployed or under employed, why wouldn’t the government want to put more emphasis on trade school students, who tend to be from lower income backgrounds and thus more dependent, directly or indirectly, on government assistance?

According to data, England, Germany, Japan and Sweden invest as heavily in the education and training of work-bound youth as they do for each college-bound youth. This puts the U.S. at a disadvantage when it comes to filling and creating today’s manufacturing jobs.

When 600,000 jobs are unfilled and 14 million unemployed, this nation must re-evaluate its commitment to manufacturing. It has been the backbone of this country from its very founding and to allow the U.S. to slip behind other countries in manufacturing superiority is unconscionable.

The United States must re-claim its manufacturing leadership. We have the smarts, we have the workers, and we have the resources. What we lack is the will.

Interestingly, this is exactly how the first unemployment figures were tabulated in 1878 by Carroll D. Wright, chief of the Massachusetts Bureau of the Statistics of Labor. According to the New York Times, he circulated a survey that asked town assessors to estimate the number of local people out of work, but only count adult men who really want employment.

“By doing this, Wright said he understood that he was excluding a large number of men who would have liked to work if they could have found a job that paid as much as they had been earning before. Just as Wright hoped, his results were encouraging. Officially, there were only 22,000 unemployed in Massachusetts, less than one-tenth as many as one widely circulated (and patently wrong) guess had suggested.

His method for counting — and not counting — the unemployed became the basis for Census tallies of the jobless and, eventually, for the monthly employment report put out by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

Old habits are hard to break. If manipulated by people with an agenda, statistics can support any issue. For example, if everyone simply stopped looking for a job, the unemployment number would be zero. This seems to be what the Obama Administration is banking on.

What the new unemployment figures fail to take in to account are the more than 4 million people that have given up looking for work, so they are no longer counted as unemployed.

The government numbers also ignore the persons employed part-time for economic reasons. These underemployed individuals are working part-time because their hours have been cut back or because they are unable to find a full-time job. Then there are those that have taken jobs well below their education and skill set just to make ends meet.

These “shadow unemployed” number over 10 million people when combined with those that have stopped looking for work. This translates into the “official” unemployment number hitting 25 million people or over 20 percent of our workforce, struggling in our dysfunctional economy.

This could be Manila or Jakarta, Buenos Aires or Sao Paolo.

In fact, the Wall Street Journal wrote: “Even with the recent gains, this is by far the worst jobs recovery since the Great Depression, and the U.S. still has about 5.5 million fewer jobs than it did before the recession began in December 2007.”

Some other startling figures is that the “official” unemployment rate for blacks stands at 13.6 percent, while the unemployment rate teenagers is at 23.2 percent. This is a tragedy.

About 17 percent of America’s young people are labeled “opportunity youth” — or people ages 16-24 who aren’t attached to the labor force — according to a report prepared by researchers for the Corporation for National and Community Service and the White House Council for Community Solutions. These future workers will lack the experience and discipline required to join the work force once new jobs are created. We are not preparing an entire generation of workers to compete in the global marketplace.

Maybe it would be helpful if the Obama administration talked to its Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben S. Bernanke. Earlier this month he told the Senate Budget Committee in Washington: “It is very important to look not just at the unemployment rate, which reflects only people who are actively seeking work. There are also a lot of people who are either out of the labor force because they don’t think they can find work or who have taken part-time jobs.”

If he sees the truth, why aren’t more people paying attention?

The administration must stop releasing unemployment figures they know are wrong simply to try to boost their approval ratings. It just compounds the misery of millions of Americans that hear the fallacy of an improving employment picture, but can’t find a job that will put food on the table.

I know I am not the only one waiting for something to happen to get this nation back on track.

Our small businesses, entrepreneurs and 14 million unemployed feel an endless gnawing, the grinding of gears, as America performs like a broken clock.

Time stands still. It has become all about the waiting.

• The waiting for the Supreme Court to strike down Obamacare so we can get our future healthcare costs under control. The Affordable Healthcare for America Act is anything but affordable. When the majority of states consider it unconstitutional, something is very wrong. It’s just one more thing keeping small business from hiring. If you can’t budget healthcare costs, you can’t budget the money to hire.

• The waiting for a bi-partisan compromise on the deficit crisis — a compromise that won’t raise taxes on America’s job creators. Congressional bickering and a stalemate on action merely create uncertainty. Uncertainty is the enemy of job creation. As are excessive taxes.

• The waiting for leadership that leads from the front and not from the rear. Leadership with a vision that has America taking its rightful place in the world economy and competing with all nations. An America that is not scared, but has the wisdom to defend and protect its economic interests. Leadership that ensures American exporters have the same access to foreign markets as foreign manufacturers have to the U.S. market. It also means that our intellectual property is protected and cherished.

• The waiting for the end of cronyism; when politicians are more interested in this nation and its people, than their pet projects and re-election. As history has repeatedly shown, market forces pick winners and losers, not the government.

• The waiting for a sincere effort to reduce the $1.7 trillion in government regulation and compliance cost. When business owners are grappling with unfair and harsh regulations, they aren’t thinking about hiring.

• The waiting for tax reform that vastly simplifies the tax code and that incentivizes for our factories to return home. Even a staff member of the Internal Revenue Service characterizes the American tax system as not only a mess, but an “extraordinarily complex” mess … and not just for individuals, for corporate entities and businesses.” When American manufacturers are punished for making money, it’s no wonder so many move their plants overseas. We need them to come back home so they can hire U.S. workers.

• The waiting for American free enterprise, economic freedom and personal liberty to take their rightful place as the foundation of U.S. exceptionalism.

• The waiting for an America that is confident in itself once again. Where the American Dream isn’t a slogan, it’s a reality. It’s time for Americans to believe that the best days of this nation are ahead. Don’t fall victim to negativism that is eroding our collective spirit. America is the greatest, most successful nation in the world. We need to start embracing this and demanding that others do, too.

Come, sing along with me: “Every day you see one more card, you take it on faith, you take it to the heart — the waiting is the hardest part.”

I’m tired of waiting, and you should be too. That’s what elections are for.

I recently read some biographical information about George Washington and wondered how he would have fared in our current contentious congress and negative media coverage.

He had several advantages: a lack of a 24-hour news cycle, no talk shows, a small group of eligible voters, and a reputation earned as the general of the Continental Army that defeated the British and set the stage for America’s independence. There’s a reason he is considered “The Father of our Country” and the “American Moses.” Much of it had to do with his size and presence, charisma, courage, character, and temperament.

But even back then pundits sniped that he positioned himself as a moral man, but kept slaves. Today, he would lose the African American vote (blacks had a difficult time voting until the Voting Rights Act of 1965) and the liberal/progressive vote.

His reputation was a man of intelligence. But the word on the street was that much of his intelligence was based on the ideas he stole from founding fathers such as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. He would be pilloried by today’s talk shows, even though there is overwhelming evidence that his intelligence was based on his own life experiences and dedicated reading.

Like today, discontent with the economy plagued Washington’s administration. Fortunately, his Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, developed, promoted, and helped Washington secure congressional passage of an economic policy agenda that included a national bank, establishing a “hard” currency, the payment of war debts, tariffs to raise revenue, the nurturing of American manufacturing, and federal spending on interstate roads and other “internal improvements” to facilitate commerce.

Could this be the genesis of a jobs creations bill? Even then, it was attacked by congressional parties.

His biggest strength in an election today would be considered his biggest weakness. As much as voters like candidates with military experience — George Washington had plenty — his military record as general of the Continental Army would come under fire. From 1775 until 1781, he only won 2 battles, Trenton and Princeton, and was forced to surrender both New York and Philadelphia to the British. You can almost see the PAC commercials that would fill our airwaves about his incompetence.

While we assume that George Washington was a shoo-in for president in 1789, he had adversaries, but none really came close to defeating him. Each of the 69 electors was expected to cast two ballots. All voted for Washington, making him the unanimous choice as the first president.

Federalist leaders generally agreed that John Adams should be the Vice President — a Massachusetts resident would help establish a regional balance in the Executive Branch. Alexander Hamilton wisely diverted a few votes to Adams to avoid the embarrassment of a tie vote.

Once in office, in 1794, he mustered a militia of 15,000 men to put down a rebellion by farmers in rural Pennsylvania who protested against a tax on whiskey, which has come to be called the Whiskey Rebellion. Trouble was, Washington did not seek permission to take this military action. Hmmm, where have we heard something like this before? You can bet that Washington would have his press secretary on double-duty.

In 1796, Washington turned down a third term of office and delivered his famous Farewell Address. Reviewing it, it becomes apparent that he learned a few things while in office.

He warned against the party system, submitting that “It serves to distract the Public Councils, and enfeeble the Public Administration….agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one….against another….it opens the door to foreign influence and corruption…thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

We also gain some insights into how he might handle today’s economy: “…cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible…avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt….it is essential that you…bear in mind, that towards the payments of debts there must be Revenue, that to have Revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised, which are not…inconvenient and unpleasant…”

He would make a pretty darn good president today.

Read more: Could George Washington Be Elected President in 2012?
Important: Can you afford to Retire? Shocking Poll Results

Perhaps most telling is that state legislators recognize that levying more taxes will not fix the economy. While the Obama administration is poised to raise taxes on small businesses (where 75% of new jobs are created) they are contributing to an environment of job-killing uncertainty. Most governors, on the other hand, are cutting taxes to spur business growth and the accompanying job growth. If states can figure this out, why can’t the Obama administration?

In Florida, newly elected Republican Governor Rick Scott is proposing budget cuts of $5 billion while also taking on public-employee pensions, which shackles the state to payouts that rob it of investing in job creation. Iowa is cutting its corporate income tax rate by 50 percent, and in some states, Medicaid payments are being reduced.

Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer wants to institute a waiver to eliminate Medicaid coverage for 280,000 residents, which in its first year would save about $1 billion.

In essence, governors have gotten the message that they need to reshape the way they do business. They didn’t get smarter they just got frustrated that they were moving in the wrong direction and the role model for a turnaround wasn’t in Washington. They heard from their constituents and responded with change – not the kind of change promised by the Obama administration that has put the country in economic peril.

Not all governors are getting the message. In California, which faces a $25.4 billion deficit, newly elected Democratic Governor Jerry Brown while vowing to reduce spending on one hand, on the other hand is asking voters to extend temporary increases in the state income and sales taxes.

Now here’s a bit of irony to consider. The State of Illinois, Obama’s home state, is one of a handful of states that is actually raising taxes! Their Governor announced a 67% increase in its individual income tax rate and a 45% jump in its corporate rate. The resulting firestorm is already evident. Neighboring states are luring Illinois companies to relocate to save millions of dollars in taxes. Can you imagine what impact this is going to have on employment and business growth?
In his most recent State of the Union address, President Obama talked about shared responsibility and instituting a five-year freeze on all discretionary government spending outside of national security. If this sounds familiar, it reads very much like last year’s State of the Union.

Is it any wonder that the most promising Republican presidential candidates for 2012 are governors or former governors? As you look around the country there are some great governors that could hold the highest office. I’m thinking of candidates like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour, and New Jersey governor Chris Christie. There’s a reason. They have shown the kind of spending constraint that creates an alternative to the spend-and-tax philosophy of the Obama administration. The smart politicians these days appear to be the nation’s governors.

Instead of meeting with his cabinet, perhaps President Obama can invite a few governors to the White House to show him how it is done in the states.

While there are no guarantees in international negotiations, the President’s inability to build consensus with foreign leaders can be traced to his administration’s disengagement on trade policies. Worse, world leaders have rejected America’s fiscal policies. Like most of us, the world leaders are skeptical that the Federal Reserve System’s creation of “vapor paper” is the right decision; and they are convinced that these policies are making America a less reliable partner. They know first-hand what happens when a country prints billions of dollars of currency to address a monetary crisis. It doesn’t work and weakens the country.

If the President hoped that scheduling a foreign trip after being trounced in the elections would give him some breathing space and distract the American people, he’s sadly mistaken. In fact, it’s done the opposite. The strength the US once enjoyed on the global stage has waned, and only a change at the top can reverse the direction.