As I read and listen to all the pros and cons about the Obama/Republican Tax Compromise, I find that I can't really assess what the heck is going on in D.C. That is, I simply seem to have more questions every time somebody gives me an explanation.
I know that bills are always more complex than we'd like. I wish we had a rule that every bill had to be about one subject, but I know that's not how it works. Still, as everyone argues about whether we're seeing necessary compromise or baseless capitulation, I have lingering questions. Some of which apply to more than this current piece of legislation. I feel like some of these fundamental questions don't get answered fully. Can we talk about these questions? Then can I ask some questions specific to this legislation in the context of those questions? Then, perhaps, we all might consider calling our elected officials and writing to our media outlets and pushing them to answer these questions in full?
You see, for me, process is as important as outcome. I've worked in community efforts for the past 20 years. I also hold an MBA and have run businesses. Additionally, I'm a parent. No matter the situation, I have been taught and have learned that quality problem resolution only comes when you get all stakeholders to the table. When the stakeholders meet face to face, they are each allowed to voice their needs, concerns and ideas and all listen to each other before trying to come up with solutions, people are generally more able to accept solutions which may not be their personal ideal. As a manager, if I have to impose something on my staff, it is received and accepted better if I hear them out and acknowledge them and then explain why I must impose this thing before actually imposing it. Next, I might ask for ideas of something in my power, which doesn't serve me, that I could do for them that might help them to know that I care about them and don't enjoy having to impose things upon them. At a minimum they feel respected and have some understanding of why I'm taking that particular action.
Which leads me to some process questions about our Democratic Leadership:
If our leaders know that a big legislative negotiation is coming up on, say, the expiration of tax cuts and the extension of unemployment benefits, why don't they reach out to their stakeholders beforehand for political support and say, "Folks, we need to get our needs, concerns and ideas out there now! Help us build momentum for our agenda! Call your Reps and Senators! Write those letters to the editors! Urge your advocacy organization to do some ads! Ask for everything, so we have a good starting point for negotiating!"? Did I miss this step? Why do the negotiations always seem to start with our most important agenda items already off the table? Shouldn't it at least be removed with significant concessions on the part of whomever demands it be removed?
And why aren't multiple stakeholders in the room for the negotiations? These things aren't about Republicans and Democrats, they're about people. People losing jobs/careers and homes. Losing the ability to feed their families. It's winter. People are going to start freezing. We're talking about tax cuts to the rich when people can't eat or heat their homes? Someone in that rooms needs to keep injecting that context. Look these people in the eyes and say, "How many people are you willing to make suffer for this?"
When elected officials sit in a room and negotiate, their main motivation is their own job security, that is, re-election. Which is about fundraising. And, who do they raise the most funds from? Well, not the lower and middle classes. So, there need to be people in the room whose job security, or whatever their motivation is, is directly related to the well-being of the stakeholders. In this case, someone representing the unemployed, the lower class, the middle class, the small businesses. (The officials themselves are wealthy, so that class is represented.) And maybe there are more stakeholders, but you get the idea. If anything impacting Social Security is on the table, then someone representing those relying on Social Security should be at the table.
My next process question: what's all this about 60 votes? How did our country become hostage to a 60 vote requirement in the Senate? I think the American people would love an explanation as to why we don't have a majority rule. Keep explaining to us why a bill can't pass with 50 votes. Is it an abuse of the filibuster? Well, say so EVERY SINGLE DAY and build momentum for filibuster reform. Or whatever procedural thing it is that has resulted in us thinking we're a democracy based on majority, when, in fact, we're not.
One thing I seem to be learning from this administration is that it's a disadvantage to be in the majority. Was this true when Bush was in office? Somehow, the minority controls the agenda and holds everything hostage. If that's the case, why do we want a majority? We would have more power if we were the minority. If that's not true, then how is it that every single piece of legislation gets whittled down before the writing has even begun, because "the Republicans are holding it hostage."
I would like our leaders to explain this every day. To tell us how it is that the minority is ruling. We need to know, so we can decide if we want to demand some changes in the system.
Why can't we use reconciliation? Didn't the Republicans use it get this lousy tax break for the rich bill in the first place? How come it was okay for them them to do and it's somehow taboo for us to?
Also, talk to me about money. How are corporate campaign contributions affecting our leaders' ability/willingness to fight for populist agenda items? How is it that a majority of citizens are against tax cuts to the rich (who have had record growth in personal wealth while the rest of us decline) and still, our leaders see no ability to fight the Republicans on this? Tell us what needs to happen to get the popular consensus to count. If that means writing legislation to reverse the Citizens United ruling, then get us to support you doing that, pronto!
Help us all understand how corporations being given the rights of personhood is twisting our democracy into a corporate state. Talk about it all the time. Help us see how to fight for a more fair election process.
Next, if you come out of a closed-door negotiation, where the stakeholders were not present and you want to impose a "compromised" legislation upon us, well, listen to how we feel about that. Express some empathy. Don't insult us, because then we're more inclined to think that you didn't care about our agenda. Offer us something to help us know that you do care and did the best you could. Why couldn't our leaders have said, "Deadlines are looming, they were willing to abuse the filibuster, we feared the worst and so, we did what we could. We understand how disappointing this is. The first thing on the new year's agenda will be XX (filibuster reform?) and we'll fight tooth and nail for that so that we're never in this position again. If we don't, we won't run for office again."
May I say a word about name calling, cursing and attacking someone's character? It's my diary, so yes, I can. When I'm in a heated dialog with someone and they curse, call me a name or insult my character, I call a time out. First of all, to go there is to admit that you can't make your point on it's merits. If your point is strong, stick with it. You don't have to diminish me to give it it's power. Second, you're clearly too emotional to have a respectful dialog, so whether it's five minutes of five years, there is no point in continuing until you can back off. I mean, really, what is achieved? Nothing constructive. So, just don't go there. Take a breath. State that you're worked up and need some space. Whatever. But don't go there. It devalues everyone, not just the object of your aspersions.
Also, if it's a compromise, don't just tell me what our side got in the deal. The very nature of compromise says we gave up stuff. But it also says they gave up stuff. Tell me what they gave up. Make those Republicans own that they don't support benefits for the unemployment. Make them shout out how unemployment benefits are a painful compromise for them in order to get gifts for the rich. Make them say it outright. Every day. But, really, what did they sacrifice? What did they not get? Not what they did not take away from others, but what did they not get for themselves? I need to know that to feel that it was a compromise and not a capitulation.
Lastly, don't we all hear all the time that the one rule for dealing with hostage takers is that you don't deal with them. You don't deal with them, because it emboldens them and validates hostage-taking as modus operandi. So, when you start referring to the need to negotiate because the other side held your agenda "hostage", I start thinking, "we need someone in there who knows how to handle hostage takers, because now I'm simply waiting for the next hostage situation." Tell me why I shouldn't expect this hostage-taking to be repeated? What have you done to ensure that it's not seen as a successful approach?
I could go on, but I'll stop there with my process questions. If you have process questions, please post them in the comments with:"Process ?" in the title. I think it would be useful to gather these and find a way to get these questions resolved to our satisfaction.
Now for my questions related to this specific proposal:
- Payroll tax holiday - how does this not lead to a justification for permanently altering the Social Security system? Social Security has always paid for itself. When it becomes a burden, having to draw off of other tax sources to meet it's obligations, it seems like a given that it plays into the longstanding desire of Republicans to dismantle Social Security. Can you say privatization? Somehow, I hear that word being bandied about in the next election. How does going here, with this "tax holiday" which really is a "borrow from Peter to pay Paul" arrangement maintain the security in Social Security? I was floored to hear about this piece of the agreement. Where did it come from? Why did it have any air time?
- Stimulus to economy of unemploy benes vs tax cuts to wealthy -I heard on NPR that every $1 spent on unemployment benefits results in $1.50 economic stimulus, while every $1 in tax cuts to the wealthy results in only 40¢. (If anyone has a good link to this data, I'd love it. Thank you priceman!) So, why do the Republicans have the political strong ground in pushing for tax breaks for the wealthy while denying relief to the unemployed in the worst depression since the 30s? It doesn't make economic sense, much less, have any semblance of morality.
- Estate tax was set to automatically reinstate at 50% (right? 50%?), why did we raise the amount that was exempt and lower the rate? Given the above info that every $1 we give to wealthy from our national economic coffer only results in a 40¢ return to the economy, this is a losing investment. Can I get money from the bank and only have to return 40% of it? That would be awesome. Would you use an equity line on your house to spend $100,000 on improvements which actually result in a $60,000 devaluation of your home? We're in the worst economic times most of us have ever seen, well, except for the rich, and we're willing to spend our resources on a losing bet? How does this make sense?
- Did I hear that those with lower incomes will see a tax increase? Why are we willing to hurt the most vulnerable amongst us, while we're rewarding those who are culpable for our economic demise?
- In the same vein of hurting those most vulnerable, how did we concede gifts to the people who generated this economic nightmare, whilst providing no assistance whatsoever to those who have been unemployed the longest? Why isn't there one of the two parties drawing a line in the sand around protecting the least powerful in our midst? I'm looking for that party. My soul needs that party to exist.
And those are my questions. Not from a lack of appreciation for a very demanding and complex job. I'm trying to really understand. To know how to set expectations. To think about what needs to be done to forward our agenda. This a fair request. After all, I hired you.
If you have some of these questions and would like them answered, please take action:
1. Call your Democratic Senators and Representatives with these talking points below:
Please oppose the tax cut bailout of the wealthy. It increases the deficit at a time in our country when we can least afford it, and it further undermines Social Security by funding it as a welfare program through the replacement of funds lost through the payroll tax cut from the general revenue. I will vote for you in 2012 if you oppose the tax cuts for the rich.
2. Sign the Dailykos petition to get Senator Sanders' back since he has promised to filibuster this absolute giveaway to the rich on the backs of the middle class and our seniors.
3. In addition to calling your elected officials, you can e-mail your Representative and your Senators as well.
4. Also, one of the most effective actions you can take is to show up at your Congressmember's district office with as many people as you can to lodge a protest.
5. Please click the Facebook "like" button on top to spread the word to as many people you can on Facebook! Also tweet this as well!