What are YOU willing to give up to help the economy?

"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You"

John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961

I read somewhere that the true art of negotiation involves figuring out what both sides can agree on, and then figuring out what you can give the other side, in exchange for what you want.  The real question is where are your priorities, do you want to 'win' the argument, or do you want to reach a deal?  It seems to me you can't do both.

The truth is you can't reach a deal if you don't really know what you want, are not prepared to give up anything, and you don't really know what the other side want.  When it comes to the discussion on the Fiscal Cliff, and all the blow ups of the previous 4 years about the economy, I am not entirely sure I know what each side really wants, I am sure I don't know what either side is willing to give up.

Yes Congress person it is possible to go against the party vote and survive!

Feeding my own confirmation bias, I will start with the GOP.  What exactly do they want from a deal?  What could the democrats give them, short of capitulation, that would bring them to a discussion that would include tax cuts.  I know they want spending cuts, but what cuts do they exactly want?  Do they want to decrease waste?  That is something I think both Dems and GOP could agree on, or do they just want to gut social programs?  A non starter for the Dems.  

Will they accept cuts to the Military (one of the biggest loss of revenue)?  Or do the cuts only have to come from programs that help the poor, women, minorities, the elderly and children?  If they get what they want, are they willing to give Democrats and the President what they want?

What about Democrats?  What are they willing to give up?  Spending cuts have to happen, can they look with objective eyes at social programs and find ways (much as the President did with the Health Care Reform Act), to make the programs more efficient, yet not reducing or removing needed benefits?  Are they willing to look at a better way of managing taxes?

The big question is does any of this need to be done right now?  I am not an economist, but it seems to me that the question of the deficit should be tackled once the economy is much healthier than it is now.  Obama has actually slowed down the rate of growth of the economy (Does the Economy do better under Democrats or Republicans?), so while the deficit is growing, it is actually growing at a slower pace than under Bush.  It seems to me that we should keep going in that direction until the economy is healthy enough to take some austerity hits.

It seems to me that we should be focusing on programs that will make our economy grow, that will put people to work, help kids get educated and put more money in people's pockets.  We need to provide a sense of safety and stability that will encourage people to start spending again, kick starting our economy.

Once we have done that, and the economy no longer needs help, then yes we can start cutting, and start increasing taxes.  Both need to happen but when the economy is good, the pain of austerity is much lighter.  But it seems that as a nation we are no longer willing to give for the good of the country, we seem to be willing to hold onto things as we all go down with the ship, rather than giving a little to patch the hole and keep the ship going until we get into port.

As for the argument for and against taxes for the rich.  I could be very naive, but it seemed to me that there was a time the rich in this country were as invested in society as the rest of us.  That sometimes their decisions were less motivated by greed, and in some cases were motivated by some sense of social good.  Perhaps it was greed, as if the economy tanked, they made less money in those days.  These days, despite the recession, the rich are getting richer, companies are making record profits while the rest of us are struggling to get by.  

When 90% of the wealth is held by the top 20% of the population, clearly to make significant revenue, it makes little sense going after the bottom 80% of the population.  The rich at the very least, should not be taxed at lower rates than those making less money.  What surprised me if the information in this blog is correct, is that the top 1% have not really increased their wealth over time, it is the next 19% of top earners that have increased their share of the wealth, at the expense not of the top 1%, but of the bottom 80%.  So the GOP is correct, there has been a redistribution of wealth, they were simply wrong about the direction of this redistribution.

I am willing (although not really able) to pay more taxes, for a country that is safer, cleaner, healthier and more egalitarian.  That is the price I am willing to pay.  I am willing to support spending cuts, if they don't harm those that are the most vulnerable, and are directed at reducing waste and increasing efficiency.  I am willing to vote for people that are willing to act like grown ups and put our country first.

After all, in a democracy, you can't complain too much about the government, as you get the government that you deserve.