Fiscal Cliff - a Moderate View

OK  Only a couple of days to the cliff, and here's my idea - bound to upset both hard core Republicans and hard core Democrats.  Everybody's still stuck in that black and white, either - or, raise taxes or cut spending frame of mind.  Let's think about what an average American family in a tight spot financially would do.  First, they'd look at their expenses and cut where they could without leaving their family completely destitute, then if more belt-tightening were needed, someone would be out there looking far a second job, and ultimately, the family's financial position would be resolved in the best manner for all concerned.  Instead of a choice between taxes and further cuts - an us or them approach -, lets compromise (dirty word?) and use a combination of both taxes and cuts in spending to start to bring the country a little bit closer together?  A moderate approach?  A step back from polarizing?  As always, I only ask you all to think about this

A Little Further Clarification

While thinking about my last post, I realized it might have been a little misleading.  I realize that the post may have been seen by Conservatives as a slap in the face.  That was not my intent.  I wanted to focus on the ideals of a truly representative government.  Since our current crises is related to the impending fiscal cliff, the Conservative minority in the Senate seems to be causing the holdup.  However, the problem is not with the Conservatives.  My position would be unchanged any time a group representing a minority opinion obstructed open debate on any issue regardless of whether they represented communists or fasciests  or socialists or anarchists.  Representative government needs to allow all positions to be argued, and, ultimately the negotiated position brought to a vote to be determined by a majority opinion.  Ultimately, the will of the people should determine the position of the country.

Fiscal Cliff and Representative Government

bethsiddhe@gmail.com

Another experiment.  I'm trying to link this blog to my facebook account.  Will someone tell me if it works?
Anyway, this post is about a striking example of how dysfunctional our government has become, and how far we have strayed from the ideals of our forefathers - the authors of our Constitution.
-     First, it was understood that our citizens had the right and the responsibility to be well-informed on what Congress does. For that reason, there is a Congressional Record of everything that is said when Congress is in session, and it was in this forum that our representatives debated on the pros and cons of each piece of legislation.  Positions would be debated and amendments proposed to arrive at a decision that was mutually acceptable.  The purpose of this was to ensure that our citizens could hear the arguments made both in favor and opposed to each bill and that their representative would be held accountable for their position and the people that they represent would be able to see how well their positions were being represented.
-     Next, in the event that the debate process was not enough to arrive at an acceptable compromise, the party representing the minority opinion would be able to "filibuster".  In order to do so, they would take the floor to continue to argue for their position, and wold not yield it to allow for a vote until an acceptable compromise was reached.  By doing so, they would be able to delay a vote for as long as they were willing to continue to hold the floor in order to resolve the impasse.  Again, all of this was recorded so that people would be able to follow what their representatives were doing.
-     Over the past several years, all of this has changed.  Proposed bills are discussed behind closed doors. This ensures that comments, opinions, promises, etc are kept off the public record provided by the Congressional Record, and makes sure that no bill reaches the floor without a predetermined outcome.  That hasn't always been the case.  I remember when a controversial bill was being presented, the discussion and debate would already have been made on the floor of Congress, and the entire country could listen in on that debate and on the final roll call while the outcome was not already determined behind closed doors.  I believe the Senate rules have been amended so that if a minority opinion chose to filibuster, they would have to do it by taking the floor of the senate, and keep up on debating until everyone was agreed to let it come to a vote.  I don't know if the Senate Rules have been changed or not, but apparently today, all a group of senators has to do is to threaten to filibuster any bill they don't totally support, and the bill will not pass without a "super majority' of 61 votes, rather than a simple majority.
-      How does this affect the situation of the fiscal crises?  Well, the major sticking point holding up any resolution of the issue is the question of allowing  the special tax reductions granted to the upper 2% or so of the country's most wealthy to expire at the end of the year.  The senate version of a means of avoiding the cliff includes allowing the temporary tax breaks that were given to the ultra-rich to expire, while cutting spending in other ways in both military and domestic spending.  Recent independent surveys are indicating that a majority of Americans - 60% and rising as of a week or so ago - support allowing those tax breaks for the super wealthy to expire.
-    So how are the dreams of our forefathers being met?  We do not have access to the secret negotiations being completed behind closed doors - only the sound bites that are released by the party leaders so we are denied the right to hear from our representatives are representing our opinions of how the crisis should be resolved.  A threat to filibuster from ~40%  of the senators in Washington are refusing to accept the desire of over 60% of the population to avoid the fiscal cliff.  We, as a nation, need to demand changes to the operation of our legislature so that once again represents the view of people who have had the opportunity to hear all arguments in favor of or opposed to proposed legislation.  Let's return this country the kind of representative government envisioned by our forefathers.