Bought and sold elections. Partisan gridlock. Nonstop negative attacks from both sides of the aisle. Given the current dysfunction of our electoral politics, it’s no wonder that Americans from diverse political perspectives have been voicing discontent with politics as of late. Peering into the fog of news stories about political divisiveness, it’s difficult to see that we have more in common than a shared sense of frustration at political immobility. If we all tend to feel our blood temperature hitting a boiling point while we consume the morning paper or evening news, at least we share the belief that political coverage can be a total downer.

But the truth is, we have more in common than shared consensus about the general badness of political gridlock. We share much more common ground than our elected officials or the news media would have us think.

In a recent op-ed in the Portland Press Herald, Ron Bancroft focuses on this idea. The simple truth that we have the capacity to come together as citizens to identify shared priorities, he suggests, is key to regaining the strength of our nation and moving our country forward. Invoking the memory of John Gardner, Republican secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Johnson, Bancroft writes:

It was Gardner who first coined this phrase, in surveying the challenges that the nation faced in 1965: “What we have before us are some breathtaking opportunities disguised as insoluble problems.”

Does that sentiment ever ring true today.

Unfortunately, we have a set of leaders of both parties for whom the phrase “breathtaking opportunities” is associated more with political gain than with what is best for the country.

What would Gardner think of the country today?

He would certainly be appalled by the corruption of money in the political system and by the partisan unwillingness to collaborate, however great the urgency of the problem.

The current state of U.S. politics takes its toll on the American public:

“We are treading the edge of a precipice here.” There is a disconnection between the people and their leaders. Citizens do not trust their government and a variety of polls indicate this mistrust extends to corporations and the media.

Civilizations die of disenchantment. If enough people doubt their society, the whole venture falls apart. We must never let anger, fashionable cynicism, or political partisanship blur our vision of this point.

Bancroft’s point here is an important one: the problem and its symptoms stretch far beyond Washington. The most significant point of concern isn’t just that our elected officials are misbehaving; it’s that the American people have lost their faith in our country’s process of governance.

As such, the solution starts with We The People.

How to start? I suggest taking one issue that divides us and building a national coalition to find common ground.

I recommend that we commission a national policy facilitator, such as AmericaSpeaks, to hold a simultaneous national debate with the goal of achieving a national consensus on this one issue.

AmericaSpeaks led a similar approach earlier this year on the entire deficit problem, and had modest success in building consensus on that complex set of issues.

Gardner said, “everything comes back to the talent and energy and sense of purpose of human beings.”

Let’s prove him right.

At last summer’s Our Budget, Our Economy meeting on the federal deficit, Americans from many backgrounds were able to come together and find agreement–a remarkable achievement that many politicians had dismissed as impossible. This does not have to be a unique phenomenon. When given the opportunity, we Americans can find commonalities and work together to solve our country’s toughest problems.

Divisiveness breeds divisiveness. Widely publicized ideological clashes on the Senate floor or among everyday citizens tend to make peoples’ worldviews more firmly rooted in opposition and discontent. But where is the focus on cooperation and dialogue? We won’t achieve progress in our country with any one political agenda. Rather, making progress in this country will mean identifying those areas of common ground and working together to actualize shared visions of our future.

AmericaSpeaks is pleased to announce an independent evaluation that has been completed by three leading experts in public opinion and citizen deliberation about this summer’s national discussion on the federal budget.

The report, entitled, “The Difference that Deliberation Makes,” was released today by Professors Archon Fung of Harvard University, Taeku Lee of the University of California at Berkeley, and Kevin Esterling of the University of California-Riverside. It is available at www.usabudgetdiscussion.org and www.ash.harvard.edu.

As partisans in Washington line up to criticize recommendations from the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, the report shows that a diverse group of 3,500 Americans were able to find common ground about how to put the nation’s fiscal house in order during the unique nation-wide public deliberation. Among other things, the researchers saw significant shifts in participants’ policy preferences after taking part in the day-long discussion, especially among those who did not start the discussion with a strong opinion on the reform options.

According to the researchers, an important trend in this deliberation was moderation. Conservatives became more willing to support tax increases and reductions in defense spending and liberals became more willing to decrease spending on some public programs.

The June 26th National Town Meeting convened Americans in 57 forums across the country linked together by satellite and the Internet for a truly national discussion. Conservative Tea Party members worked in small groups with liberal MoveOn activists to evaluate options that would raise taxes and reduce government spending. Participants reported to the researchers that they felt the discussions were civil and respectful, despite the diversity of participants on this highly-polarized topic.

“Overall, the Our Budget, Our Economy event appears to have achieved its goals of bringing together a diverse group of ordinary Americans to engage each other in constructive discussion,” the researchers wrote. “Both liberals and conservatives appear to have moderated in their policy views regarding spending cuts and tax increases. And the organizers appear to have been quite successful in creating a forum for open and balanced discussion, based on the self-reports of participants as well as the extensive observation by our 19 on-site research assistants.”

Other notable statistics from the report include:

• 85 percent of the participants felt more informed about the challenges and options for cutting the federal budget deficit.
• 97 percent believed all participants listened to one another respectfully and courteously.
• 93 percent felt that other participants seemed to hear and understand their views.
• Only 19 percent said the meeting was not fair and unbiased.
• 93 percent said everyone had a real opportunity to speak and no one was shut out of the discussions.
• Only 24% said did not change their views as a result of the discussion.
• 81% said that decision makers should incorporate the conclusions of the town meeting into federal budget policy.
• 92% said they would participate in an event like this again.
• 87% said the event was fun and that politics should be like this more often.

National discussion participants evaluated 42 reform options that included tax increases and spending cuts. Nearly two-thirds of the groups taking part in the discussion were able to develop compromise packages that would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion or more.

Notably, those who described themselves as “somewhat conservative”, “somewhat liberal” and “moderate” expressed a strong willingness to support highly polarized reforms from across the political spectrum.  For example, reductions in defense spending were supported by 89% of those who described themselves as “moderate” and 83% of those who described themselves as “somewhat conservative.” Similarly, reductions in health care spending were supported by 65% of “moderate” participants and 58% of “somewhat liberal” participants.

Cross-posted from the AmericaSpeaks blog

The report issued today by the President’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, which will be voted upon by the Commission on Friday, challenges our political system and the American people to confront the difficult trade-offs required to address our nation’s long-term deficits. The public is willing to have a hard conversation about taxes and spending and Americans want Congress to pair this conversation with action.

This summer, AmericaSpeaks convened thousands of Americans from across the political spectrum in a national discussion on the federal debt. At 57 meeting sites across the country, we challenged a diverse group of citizens to reduce the deficit to a sustainable level over the next 15 years. From Portland, OR, to Columbia, SC, members of local Tea Parties sat with MoveOn activists to wrestle with the trade offs. And unlike much of what we see in the media today, there was no screaming or sign waving. Regular Americans worked together to solve a common problem.

At the end of the day-long deliberation, nearly two-thirds of our table groups were able to reduce the deficit by more than $1 trillion. Surprisingly, many liberals expressed willingness to include significant cuts to spending on health care and discretionary programs as part of a deficit-reduction package. And many conservatives expressed a willingness to include tax increases and cuts to defense spending as part of a deficit-reduction package.

This was possible because people were given the time and information they needed to have substantive conversations to solve a serious problem facing our nation. For our nation’s leaders to have any hope of advancing reforms to our tax and spending policies to address deficits, it is essential for significantly more public education and engagement to take place.

The American people were asked by their elected leaders this summer to come together and offer suggestions that would be taken seriously – and the people did as they were asked. Now it is time for Congress to respond to the public’s priorities and take action. Hopefully the good work and good will can continue, not just on the budget but on the range of issues facing our nation.

To view the results of the national discussion, visit the usabudgetdiscussion.org results page.

AmericaSpeaks’ most important work this year was “Our Budget, Our Economy,” the national discussion on the country’s fiscal future held on June 26th.

Once again the most important learning from the deliberations of 3,500 people reflecting our nation’s population was that when Americans are given a target on a problem they want to solve, in this case cutting the deficit by $1.2 trillion dollars by 2025, they are quite capable of doing it.

And even more important, when the whole range of differences: age, income, gender, race/ethnicity, and ideology that IS this country, is part of the discussion they make compromises and trade-offs to solve the problem.

When people are polled individually what they want to do about the problem, they do make choices reflecting their ideological views. So, the aggregate of individual views results in different outcomes than the collective views of Americans after deliberation.

This has been demonstrated time and time again by our work and by the work of so many other organizations in the field of deliberative democracy: National Issues Forum, Everyday Democracy, Public Agenda, Center for Deliberative Democracy.

The Co-Chairs of President Obama’s fiscal commission have published their draft proposal (the full Commission’s recommendations will be out next week) and the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Debt Reduction Task Force has announced their recommendations. To look at their ideas, click here.

Both documents reflect tough choices: cutting spending AND raising revenues. The Americans participating in “Our Budget, Our Economy” sent the same message to Congress and the White House on June 26th. The next step will require political courage of all of our elected officials.

On another note, Thanksgiving has always been my favorite Holiday. A time not only to enjoy all the traditions of your family’s Thanksgiving Dinner, but a time to reflect and be grateful for all the many blessings in our lives.

This Thanksgiving is a very special one for me. My 86 year old mother and I are traveling to Granada, Spain to visit Abby, her granddaughter/my niece, who is studying there. So much to be grateful for – three generations of Lukensmeyer women able to share a special time together.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Several individuals and organizations have proposed ways that the United States could alter existing policies to reduce long-term national debt. Because there are many conflicting views about how to reduce the deficit, it can be difficult to keep all of the proposals straight.

Below is a list of the most widely discussed debt reduction plans that have been released since the AmericaSpeaks: Our Budget, Our Economy national discussion. We encourage you to review the plans yourself and discuss the many options for debt reduction with family and friends.

Fiscal Commission Co-Chairs’ draft proposal

On November 10, 2010, Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, the co-chairs of the President’s bipartisan National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, released a report detailing their priorities for deficit reduction. Note that this is not the Commission’s actual report–which will be released on December 1–but rather a draft proposal from the two co-chairs, inviting their own commission to think boldly and abandon partisanship.

The Bowles-Simpson plan was met with mixed praise and criticism from the left and right. As the first concrete set of recommendations released by anyone on the Fiscal Commission, the plan represents a first step towards the challenge of putting aside partisan concerns to seriously tackle the long-term deficit problem.

Several key priorities articulated by the public in the national discussion are reflected in this proposal, including cuts in defense spending, some cuts in health care with provisions to protect those who are most vulnerable, and raising the earnings cap on Social Security to 90%. On the other hand, this plan is missing other key recommendations from citizens, including raising tax rates for higher-income individuals and preserving major tax expenditures like mortgage deductions. For a more complete comparison between the draft proposal and the Our Budget, Our Economy results, see AmericaSpeaks president Carolyn Lukensmeyer’s blog post on the issue.

Bipartisan Policy Center’s “Restoring America’s Future”

A bipartisan task force chaired by former Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici and former White House Budget Director Alice Rivlin released the Bipartisan Policy Center’s debt reduction plan on November 17, 2010. Both Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin have expressed ongoing dedication to finding bipartisan solutions for our growing debt problem.

Several members of this task force were involved in Our Budget, Our Economy. Domenici and Rivlin are both featured in the Federal Budget 101 video that served as background information for participants at the national discussion, and Rivlin attended the event in Philadelphia. Three members of the task force–Robert Bixby, Maya MacGuineas, and Marc H. Morial–were on the national discussion’s National Advisory Committee. Finally, task force member Joseph Minarik served as an “issue expert” at the Town Meeting in Philadelphia, floating from table to table to answer questions about budget issues as they arose in participants’ deliberations.

Like the Bowles-Simpson report, this plan proposes raising the earnings cap on Social Security to 90%, a measure supported by most participants in the national discussion. Many participants also expressed frustration with an overly complex tax code and wanted a simpler, fairer tax system, and the Domenici-Rivlin proposes steps towards simplifying taxes. However, the plan proposes restructuring tax brackets in a way that would lower individual rates for higher earners, whereas most in the national discussion supported increasing taxes for higher income brackets. Moreover, most participants opposed creation of a 5% value-added tax (VAT), and this plan suggests a VAT-like 6.5% national Debt Reduction Sales Tax.

Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform’s “Back in the Black”

Rather than recommending specific modifications to spending or tax structures, the Peterson-Pew Commission on Budget Reform’s report recommends a series of reforms to the government’s budgeting process. This commission suggests that these policy changes will stabilize the debt at 60% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and lead to more transparent, responsible budgeting in the future.

Currently, the federal budget is produced through a series of incremental annual decisions. Policymakers do not work towards specific fiscal targets and therefore have little incentive to think about the long-term fiscal outlook when making budgeting decisions. Short-term thinking leads to long-term problems. Members of the Peterson-Pew Commission suggest a series of fiscal reforms to make the budgeting process more far-sighted, disciplined, and transparent. As a start, they recommend that Congress and the President sign a Sustainable Debt Act that would establish specific targets for debt reduction for the medium- and long-term, create new rules for enforcement, and specify when public debt would be considered stabilized. To meet these goals, the report recommends increased levels of transparency and oversight. For example, under the Commission’s recommended policy changes, the President would report to Congress at the end of each year with an update about the budget’s effects and progress towards fiscal goals.

Because participants in the AmericaSpeaks national discussion on debt and deficit reduction were asked to focus spending and revenue rather than budgeting policy, it is not appropriate to draw comparisons between this proposal and the Our Budget, Our Economy citizens’ plan.

Stay Tuned!

On December 1, President Obama’s Fiscal Commission will release their final recommendations for how Congress can work to reduce the deficit. To stay informed about how the collective priorities of Americans figure into this ongoing conversation about fiscal reform, be sure to check the “Learn” section of the AmericaSpeaks: Our Budget, Our Economy web site.

AmericaSpeaks is pleased to see that the draft proposal from the Co-Chairs of the President’s National Committee on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform reflects several key priorities articulated by the public in our national discussion on the nation’s fiscal challenges. As the Members of the Commission consider this draft proposal, we hope that their deliberations will continue to be informed by the common ground found by the diverse group of Americans who took part in the discussion.

AmericaSpeaks: Our Budget, Our Economy brought together 3,500 Americans across 57 sites this summer to discuss our nation’s fiscal future.  Participants, who reflected the demographic makeup of our nation, sat at tables of ten and spent more than six hours discussing everything from health care and Social Security to taxes, domestic spending and defense. Days after the event, AmericaSpeaks testified before the Commission and provided Commissioners with results of the day’s deliberations. Many, but not all, of those results are reflected in the draft proposal released earlier today.

While participants in the national discussion came from every walk of life and every ideological perspective, there was near universal consensus that our President and Congress need to put aside partisan concerns and seriously tackle this long-term problem. The Co-Chairs of the President’s Commission have stepped up to this challenge and we look forward to the Members of the Commission doing the same.

• Defense Spending: One of the strongest messages from across the ideological spectrum at the national discussion was that defense spending needs to be seriously curtailed. We need to protect our nation and our borders, but we simply cannot afford our current global military presence. The draft proposal from the Commission’s Co-Chairs makes the same argument.
• Health Care and Discretionary Spending: A majority of participants in the national discussion supported reductions in health care and discretionary spending (of 5% or more), but urged that our nation continue to protect those who are most vulnerable in our society. The draft proposal offers options and ideas for how this goal could be accomplished.
• Social Security: Nearly two-thirds of the participants in the national discussion supported raising the earnings cap on Social Security to 90% in order to protect the long-term solvency of the program, which was another suggestion put forth by the Commission’s Co-Chairs. Other proposals to reform Social Security that are included in the Co-Chairs’ draft proposal, however, did not receive significant support from the public, including raising the retirement age and modifying the formula for raising benefits to reflect a lower measurement of inflation.
• Reform of the Tax Code: Not surprisingly, many participants in the national discussion expressed frustration with an overly-complex tax code and wanted a simpler, fairer system. The Co-Chairs’ proposal makes this recommendation as well. However, the Co-Chairs’ proposal to eliminate or modify major tax expenditures in the code, like depreciation rules and mortgage deductions did not receive majority support from participants.
• Tax Rates: Public support for reforms that would increase taxes on individuals in higher income brackets is not reflected in the Co-Chairs’ draft proposal.

One message that we heard loudly and clearly on June 26th was that people are tired of partisan name calling, and want policymakers to come together and solve the problems facing our nation. These people, who ranged from Tea Party activists to MoveOn members, said, “If we can do it, so can Congress.”

AmericaSpeaks is pleased to see that many of the views expressed by Americans are in the draft released today, and we hope that policymakers across the political spectrum continue to find ways to engage the American people and find the common ground that is needed to move our nation forward.

Jeanne Sahadi is a senior writer and columnist for CNNMoney.com. Cross-posted from CNNMoney.com.

The United States racked up a $1.29 trillion deficit in fiscal year 2010, the federal government said Friday.

While that is historically high, it’s not as high as the $1.42 trillion registered for 2009, which was the largest on record as a percentage of the economy since 1945. In real dollar terms, the 2009 gap was the largest ever.

The deficit for fiscal 2010, which ended Sept. 30, represented 8.9% of the economy. By comparison, at the height of World War II in 1943, the deficit equaled 30.3% of the economy.

Generally speaking, the slight decline in 2010 is due to somewhat higher tax receipts (up 2.7%) and slightly less spending (down 1.8%).

Tax revenue: Corporate tax revenue rose as did receipts from the Federal Reserve, which made money off its investments in housing and other areas of the economy.

In fact, the Fed’s payments to the Treasury rose 122%.

Individual income and payroll tax receipts, however, were down, the result of a continued high unemployment rate.

Spending: Overall government spending fell primarily because of declines in the costs of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, which just ended, and payments to mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The same is true for funds spent on federal deposit insurance.

Apart from those programs, other spending rose 5.5% because of increased outlays on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment benefits.

Of the three, the biggest jump was the 29% increase in money spent on unemployment benefits.

Interest: Meanwhile, the federal government in fiscal year 2010 paid $414 billion in interest on the country’s cumulative debt acquired over the years. Thanks to continued low interest rates, however, that’s only 8% more than the interest paid in 2009, even though the country’s accumulated debt owed to the public rose by nearly 20% year over year.

Long-term problem: There has been a lot of political hysteria expressed over the annual deficits of the past two years.

Fiscal experts note, however, that the abnormally large deficits incurred in the wake of the financial crisis are not the primary source of the country’s biggest fiscal problems.

The biggest source of fiscal concern remains the so-called structural deficit, which is made up primarily of spending on the big three entitlement programs. That structural deficit will continue to balloon faster than the economy grows long after the current downturn has ended.

Indeed, the Government Accountability Office projects that by the end of this decade, the vast majority of all federal tax revenue will be swallowed up by just four things: Interest payments on the country’s debt, and the payment of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security benefits.

The president’s bipartisan fiscal commission, charged with recommending ways to get U.S. debt under control, will issue a report in December.

AmericaSpeaks just released a new video with highlights from our national discussion on the federal budget. The main video (which is about six minutes long) gives viewers a sense of how the national discussion brought 3,500 people together across 57 sites.

For those interested in learning more, we included five additional minutes with interviews from participants about what it was like to take part in the process, as well as a review of top-line results from the event.

Take a look, and while you’re at it you can view videos on our statewide discussion on health care in California and our discussions on rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Last week, 130 former Members of Congress sent out an appeal to this year’s candidates calling for cooperation, civility, and a much more effective approach to working together.

Congress appears gripped by zero-sum game partisanship. The goal often seems to be more to devastate the other side (the enemy, no longer the honorable adversary) than to find common ground to solve problems, much less to have a spirited but civil debate about how to do so.

The divisive and mean-spirited way debate often occurs inside Congress is encouraged and repeated outside: on cable news shows, in blogs and in rallies. Members who far exceed the bounds of normal and respectful discourse are not viewed with shame but are lionized, treated as celebrities, rewarded with cable television appearances, and enlisted as magnets for campaign fund-raisers.

Meanwhile, lawmakers who try to address problems and find workable solutions across party lines find themselves denigrated by an angry fringe of partisans, people unhappy that their representatives would even deign to work with the enemy. When bipartisan ideas are advanced, they are met by partisan derision.

To read more of the letter, click here.

This appeal sounds very similar to much of what AmericaSpeaks heard from the public when we convened our national discussion on the federal budget this past summer.

89% of participants were dissatisfied with the current tone and quality of political discussions today. And the strongest messages from citizens in meeting sites across the country to their representatives in Congress was that people wanted to see leaders put aside their differences and start solving problems.

“It was so refreshing to have civil discourse among people of different ages, persuasions, and backgrounds,” said MaryEllen S., of Albuquerque, NM. “Congress could learn a lot from our experience. The tone of our discussions was polite, respectful, and everyone contributed.”

The public recognizes that something is wrong and former Members of Congress are joining the chorus for changing how our nation is governed. Let’s hope this is the beginning of a new effort to strengthen our democracy.

AmericaSpeaks:  Our Budget, Our Economy participants sent a clear message to our leaders:  The people of this country do understand that we can’t  keep spending more than we have once our economy recovers. And they expect leaders to take action.

A recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll taken of Richmond, Virginia residents reinforces that message.

Richmond, a bellwether city and capital of a purple state, was also among the 19 main sites that took part in the national discussion in June.

A strong majority of participants in the NBC/WSJ poll were willing to take a hard look at cuts and reforms to Medicare and Medicaid.  Our Budget, Our Economy participants were also willing to make hard choices about health care, with 58% of participants back at least a 5% cut in health care spending:

In both the national discussion and the NBC/WSJ poll citizens displayed a willingness to consider new revenue options.

Poll participants also expressed the same concerns for public well being that echoes value statements from Our Budget, Our Economy.

One poll participants, a Republican leaning independent, worried about cutting service programs too sharply:  “You hurt people. There are people living on Social Security. If you start taking that away or lowering it, you’re impacting a person’s life.”

Our Budget, Our Economy participants held similar concerns and expressed a deep desire to care equally for current and future generations:

While there were many similarities within the two groups, there was also an interesting area of divergence in regards to defense spending. Those taking part in the NBC/WSJ poll rejected, by a large margin, making cuts to defense spending.  Our Budget, Our Economy participants, both in Richmond and nationally, overwhelmingly favored at least a 5% cut.

Read the rest of the article here.