How we select our issues.
We aim to promote and support positions that broadly impact citizens across demographic, financial and regional boundaries and that are widely supported in popular opinion but may be divisive and polarizing in the political arena where the discussion is pushed to the radical left or right position. We select issues that by most standards and polls are supported by at least 68% of the U.S. population and we take into account the financial impact that enacting such legislation may have.
To put is simply, we select issues where “the gain is greater than the pain” and where the enactment of legislation serves the long-term betterment of the population and country as a whole vs. the short term impact that might have some modestly negative implication.
Our 5 Common Ground Issues
Health Care Rights
Death with Dignity
The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens (75% +/- by most surveys) want to have control of their healthcare decisions and control of their quality of life, which includes the services provided to them by the medical community in their last stages of life. The supporting poll information can be found here.
Family Care
Medical Leave
An overwhelming majority of US citizens across the political spectrum support paid family and medical leave for workers in some form, yet the United States is one of only 7 countries in the United Nations that does not offer or require any paid family or medical leave for workers. The supporting poll information can be found here.
Responsible Government
Ending the Filibuster
Rules of order for conducting business in both the Senate and the House of Representatives were designed in the constitution to effectively promote true representation of the voters, informative and cooperative debate and enable legislation to be effectively considered and passed.
Teacher Pay
Greater Minimums
An overwhelming majority of US citizens support increasing teacher pay yet there is no universal standard for pay and no guarantee that teacher pay can provide a suitable living wage. By cost of living and GDP standards, the U.S. ranks 19th in the world in teacher pay. The supporting poll information can be found here.
Gun Safety
Background Checks on Every Sale
An overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens (75%-83%) support comprehensive background checks prior to the purchase of a firearm as a means by which firearm sales can have some measure of regulation to ensure they are acquired and used safely. The supporting poll information can be found here and here.
Health Care Rights - Death with Dignity
The issue:
The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens (75% +/- by most surveys) want to have control of their healthcare decisions and control of their quality of life, which includes the services provided to them by the medical community in their last stages of life. When physical suffering persists and death is imminent, the overwhelming majority of citizens want the freedom of choice to legally cease their pain and suffering or hasten their death in a peaceful, compassionate AND legal manner with support from their physicians.
The rationale:
Enacting Medical Aid in Dying legislation provides a closely overseen medical option for adults to access at their own discretion when and if it provides comfort, relief and finality to one’s pain and suffering. The legislation respects and does not tread on individuals’ religious beliefs or rights and provides a compassionate alternative to someone committed to ending their life in a painful or inhumane way via suicide. Legislation also provides services for counseling and other end-of-life care options to be considered as an alternative to medical aid in dying.
The problem:
Today the vast majority of U.S. citizens have no legal access to a peaceful end-of-life option provided with dignity, even when they and their family/friends fully embrace the option and one’s quality of life is significantly diminished.
The conversation of death and especially legally assisted aid-in-dying is still strangely taboo in many circles and is a lightning rod subject in Congress where legislators avoid discussion for fear of being labeled “unreligious” or indirectly supporting suicide, neither of which is the case.
Model legislation:
Oregon - Death with Dignity Act.
New Mexico - Elizabeth Whitfield End of Life Options Act
California - California End of Life Options Act.
Model organizations supporting the issue.
Compassion & Choices: compassionandchoices.org
The solution:
Universally enact legislation that permits people to have legal, affordable and accessible options for compassionate dying and end-of-life care that reflects their own values, priorities and beliefs.
What you can do - How you can vote:
Ask your candidate or representative to, “Please support Medical Aid in Dying legislation similar to the Oregon, New Mexico or California legislation” and tell them your vote depends on their commitment. Ask them to put their support of this position on their web site.
Contact your representative.
Don’t know your U.S. House representative? Find and contact them here.
Don’t know your U.S. Senator ?- Find and contact them here.
Family Care - Medical Leave
The issue:
An overwhelming majority of US citizens (82% +/-) across the political spectrum support paid family and medical leave for workers in some form, yet the United States is one of only 7 countries (out of 186) in the United Nations that does not offer or require any paid family or medical leave for workers. The other countries that do not currently offer paid family leave are Papua New Guinea, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Tonga. Further, the average international paid maternity leave is 29 weeks and The United States is the only developed country that doesn’t offer any guaranteed sick days.
The rationale:
Providing universal, paid time off from work is commonplace world-wide AND has shown to be both an economic driver and enhances workplace productivity in a long-term analysis. Read here. Providing paid family leave and sick leave serves not only the U.S. population as a whole but provides a level playing field for all workers and provides adequate parenting time for early childhood development.
Model Organization representing the cause:
https://www.abetterbalance.org/
https://paidleave.us/ (previous)
The problem:
Maternity/Paternity and Health requirements are an absolute normality of life requiring adequate time outside of the workplace to care for a newborn, care for oneself and care for dependent family members, yet the U.S. has no universal requirement for employers to provide for paid time away from work for either case. All industrialized nations, other than the United States, grant parents the right to take time off work with pay following the birth or adoption of a child. In European countries, a period of at least 14 to 20 weeks of maternity leave is provided, with 70% to 100% of wages replaced.
-
The length of the job protection and leave payment differs substantially across nations, but the total duration of paid leave exceeds nine months in the majority of them. Canada currently provides at least one year of paid leave, with around 55% of wages replaced, up to a ceiling. Though a significant number of US employers do offer 1-2 weeks of paid “sick days” and unpaid maternity/paternity leave, the policy has a significant and disproportionate negative impact on workers in single-parent households, lower-income wage earners and workers in industries facing low or little employment competition.
Model legislation:
Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act “FAMILY Act”. Introduced 2023 (under consideration). Read here for an overview of the sections within the act.
Read here for an overview of the bill from the Center for American Progress.
Read a concise overview from a recent 2023 US News overview on Paid Family Leave issues here.
Read a bipartisan letter of opinion here.
The solution:
Enact Federal minimum standards for paid sick and maternity/paternity leave, competitive with or approaching standards of our economic trading partners and allies or which mimics an existing law such as the California Paid Family Leave law. Enact legislation providing for a minimum of 4 weeks paid sick leave per year that can be universally extended to care for a household dependent child or incapacitated adult family member.
Teacher Pay - Greater Minimums
The issue:
An overwhelming majority of US citizens (68-77%) support increasing teacher pay (primary school through high school) by significant amounts yet there is no universal standard for pay and no guarantee that teacher pay can provide a suitable living wage. By cost of living and GDP standards, the U.S. ranks 19th in the world in teacher pay yet we proclaim to be the “educational standard” for the world.
The rationale:
K-12 Education is a universal right for US children yet there is no universal standard of pay for one of the most critical, universally revered and formative roles as a teacher. There’s both a societal and economic benefit to all citizens and to the country in attracting the most talented and motivated teachers to roles in every community. By nearly any measure, the expenditures toward increasing teacher pay to a minimum standard are outweighed by future increased economic productivity, diversity of talent and social benefits from more engaged, skilled and socially adapted students…all a result of more skilled, more motivated primary and secondary teachers.
The problem:
There still is no Federal policy that requires any minimum level of teacher pay nor any structure for pay equity, and salary determination is left to the states and local counties of each school district. It’s a system where wealthy communities and counties can tax and appropriate funds to support higher pay and poorer, less economically advantaged states and communities are left to struggle to meet higher standards…and in some cases, high-cost-of-living communities struggling to pay teachers a living wage that may be 2 or 3 times the cost of living in another community within the same state.
-
The length of the job protection and leave payment differs substantially across nations, but the total duration of paid leave exceeds nine months in the majority of them. Canada currently provides at least one year of paid leave, with around 55% of wages replaced, up to a ceiling. Though a significant number of US employers do offer 1-2 weeks of paid “sick days” and unpaid maternity/paternity leave, the policy has a significant and disproportionate negative impact on workers in single-parent households, lower-income wage earners and workers in industries facing low or little employment competition.
Model legislation:
“2023 Pay Teachers Act” (proposed)
Read more: Which Nations Give Teachers the best salaries.
Read more: Teaching salary index.
The solution:
Enact legislation that sets a minimum standard for teacher pay plus provides federal funding support for teachers in economically disadvantaged communities where local funding is insufficient and/or where teacher recruitment is problematic or difficult.
What you can do - How you can vote:
Ask your candidate or representative to, “Please support the 2023 Pay Teachers Act“- Sanders - VT or other universal increase in teacher pay act.
Contact your representative.
Don’t know your U.S. House representative? Find and contact them here.
Don’t know your U.S. Senator?- Find and contact them here.
Responsible Government - Ending the Filibuster
The issue:
Rules of order for conducting business in both the Senate and the House of Representatives were designed in the constitution to effectively promote true representation of the citizenry (voters), promote informative and cooperative debate and enable legislation to be effectively considered and passed (or not) with varying levels of majorities in each chamber. The intention of the filibuster, which was not an original rule of the Senate nor in the constitution was incorporated to allow extended debate on a subject for the purpose of further deliberating on a subject but also to allow the minority party (the party with fewer representatives) to stall or hold off on a vote on legislation for a brief period of time, with any one Senator able to speak for as long as they want from the floor of the Senate after which the Senate could vote to cut off debate with a simple majority (51) of votes.
The rationale:
The filibuster no longer serves Democracy as it once was intended and now is used as a regular weapon by the party not in the majority, often as a tool to stall or threaten or use as a bargaining chip towards passing or gaining approval on other legislation. Making changes to the filibuster with the above solution provides for it’s continuation as a tool to encourage and extend debate but limits its ability to stop legislation from moving forward with a vote and provides for a more reasonable majority (55 vs. 60) and further encourages cooperation, compromise and dialogue between the parties representing all citizens.
The problem:
Once a bill gets to a vote on the Senate floor, it requires a simple majority of 51 votes to pass after debate has ended. But there’s a catch: before it can get to a vote, it actually now takes 60 votes to cut off debate (as part of the change to Filibuster rules in 1975), thus enabling a minority of Senators to stall, table or kill legislation that has the support of a majority of Senators. One might ask “why” would Senators want to keep a procedure that allows for popular measures to be stalled or tabled…and the easiest answer is “politics” with the current minority party not wishing to give up it’s ability to stall or kill legislation. Since there is always a minority party and representatives elected with fairly short terms (6 years) seeking to have a short-term impact, the Senate has been unable to vote the Filibuster out of its rules of order regardless of it’s negative impact on passing legislation efficiently, effectively AND that which has popular majority support by legislators and their constituents across the country. It’s a self-defeating, self-perpetuating tool that is not effectively serving the citizenry across both dominant parties (Republican and Democrat) and across the entire political spectrum.
Model legislation:
There are other “solutions” beyond the 55 vote reduction including, “Ratcheting Down” a method that requires successively less resistance on each vote (i.e. 60 votes on the first call, 57 votes on the second, 54 votes on the third and 51 votes on the fourth). This allows extended debate and time for negotiation between parties while ultimately only requiring a simple majority should it require 4 votes to get there. And….
Eliminate the filibuster on “Motions to Proceed” (the simple act of bringing a bill up for debate) which will allow the bill to be debated with a simple 51-vote majority.
The solution:
There have been a number of proposed “solutions” to ending or reforming the filibuster, each with its own challenges and often built-in bureaucracy. The simplest, likely most effective reform is a simple two-step approach that still provides an opportunity for the minority party to delay a vote to encourage debate but moves legislation along with more than a simple majority, assuring that it takes some cooperation among the parties in an evenly divided (or closely divided) Senate. Step 1 would be to reduce the 60 vote threshold to 55 (still allowing a minority of Senators at 45 to delay a vote and extend debate). Step 2. Eliminate the ability to filibuster “Motions to Proceed” which may currently be used to prevent even bringing a piece of legislation to the floor for debate. Under this reform, a simple majority could control the agenda enough to open substantive debate on a bill and to pass legislation with 55 of 100 Senators voting for its passage.
What you can do - How you can vote:
Write your senator that your vote for them is dependent on their public support and vote for amending the filibuster rules by:
Reduce from 60 to 55 votes to invoke “cloture” or vote on a bill
OR…. install a “Ratcheting Down” method to a simple majority vote.
And….Eliminate the filibuster on “Motions to Proceed” to ensure all bills get exposed to debate and consideration with a simple majority vote.
Gun Safety - Background Checks on Every Sale
The issue:
An overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens (75%-83%) support comprehensive background checks prior to the purchase of a firearm as a means by which firearm sales can have some measure of regulation to ensure they are acquired and used safely.
The rationale:
A scattering of state-mandated background checks allows for individuals to cross over state borders to purchase firearms where no background check is required and to purchase firearms online with inconsistent levels of verification and identification. Plus individuals in some non-background check states may purchase firearms and rounds of ammunition online with no check of criminal records and/or waiting periods to ensure a safe sale. Existing qualification and check systems already exist in the U.S. without infringing on an individual’s rights…most obviously for the acquisition of drivers’ licenses which are supported on the state and federal level, provide for use qualifications, safety testing and other beneficial standards that do not infringe on citizens rights and provide for a universally safer operating environment.
The problem:
Current federal law requires background checks to be performed for anyone purchasing a firearm at a federally licensed gun dealer–however only 40% of guns sold in the US are sold through a federally licensed dealer. In most states, sales at gun shows, flea markets, and private gun sales are not subject to background check regulations. This means that people with felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, or other factors that prevent them from legally purchasing a gun at a federally licensed dealer can obtain firearms from a gun show or private sale in many states.
-
Currently only 21 states require comprehensive background checks with varying standards and allowances to clear a purchase, plus no universal approach to interfacing with FBI or interstate criminal records to ensure a safe purchase. This patchwork system creates an ineffective barrier to purchases by individuals who would otherwise be disqualified from owning a firearm and allows for the easy transfer of firearms and ammunition across state borders.
Model legislation:
H.R. 8, the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021 (passed by the House of Representatives in 2021) Read the bill text here.
Read an overview position on H.R. 8 here.
Model rganizations supporting the issue:
Everytown For Gun Safety: Everytown.org
Mom’s Demand Action: MomsDemandAction.org
Giffords: Giffords.org
The solution:
Enact federal legislation that requires a criminal background check on the purchase of any firearm at any point of sale in all states and that provides the ability for states to access a Federal database of criminal information to ensure the background check is accurate and comprehensive.
What you can do - How you can vote:
Find your senator and congressman’s position here https://gunsensevoter.org/candidates/ and vote to support them if they support Background checks on all gun sales plus other gun safety measures. You can also ask them to “please support model legislation H.R. 8 the Bipartisan Background Checks Act of 2021.”
Don’t know your U.S. House representative? Find and contact them here.
Don’t know your U.S. Senator?- Find and contact them here