Policy Making from a Chinese Menu

The dueling Congressional tax plans are the latest exhibit in policy making by Chinese menu. Instead of thinking through issues and starting with the core question of: What problem are we trying to solve? –both the House and Senate have engaged in choosing their favorite items from a menu with no coherent point of view about why those singular items might come together to form a whole policy.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines policy as “a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.” Choosing eggrolls, spicy kung pao chicken, house fried rice, and vegetable lo-mein for dinner is a definite course of action from among alternatives in light of the given condition that you are hungry. It might even guide future decisions not to have Chinese food for a couple days because you are ready to move on to steak or spaghetti.

I was formally trained in philosophy and debate. Clients engage my firm to think through policy issues. I’m essentially paid to argue, but not like a lawyer, more like a philosopher. We are well aware of the trade-offs policy decisions entail. Argumentation is the art of thinking through those trade-offs. The stasis theory is ingrained in my thinking and approach to issues, even now as I work with corporate clients on business issues and run my own business. Developed by the Ancient Greeks, honed by the Romans, and used for centuries hence, the four core questions of stasis theory are those most of us were taught regarding how to think about problems.

When faced with an issue, we ask: First, what are the facts, or, is there really a problem? Second, what kind of problem is it? Third, how serious is this problem, who is affected, what are the costs of solving the problem? Fourth, and finally, we ask, should we take action, who should we include in solving the problem, and what needs to happen to solve the problem?

As you can see with the fourth question, policy questions often begin with a “should” – at least in concept. Should local tax dollars be used to build parks? Should individuals be required to have automobile insurance? How should free speech be weighed against public safety? There is a method being used to determine present and future decisions. Stepping through the core questions of the stasis theory helps us as individuals, communities, and as a society think about alternatives to solving a problem, and be clear-minded about what we are not choosing, as much as what we are choosing to do.

When the government is involved, it is essential that reasoning for choices is clear. Lawrence O. Gostin, a Professor at Georgetown Law, explains, “government should justify interventions because, almost invariably, they intrude on individual rights and interests and incur economic costs.”

Commentators and tax experts are writing and speaking about the winners and losers in the tax cut passed by the House this week and the Senate bill under consideration, so if you are following the issue, you have a pretty good idea of what is in the proposals. What we have very little idea of is why. Is there really a problem? What kind of problem is it?

Will lowering the corporate tax rate for large companies fix this problem? Will raising the tax rate for small businesses who are accountants, dentists, or consultants fix this problem? Is raising the deficit an acceptable cost of solving the problem?

During this holiday season, as families and friends gather, I would ask anyone who is willing to engage in a discussion that asks as many of the four questions above as possible. Like the health bills that passed, but eventually failed to become law earlier this year, the tax proposals before us are a result of Chinese menu-style policy making. A definite course of action is being selected, but without much input or thoughtfulness about what problems we are trying to solve, the costs of solving the problem, and whether the solutions will actually work.

If we want coherent policy, that is, policy that addresses a clearly defined problem and is likely to produce the desired outcome, we need to discuss amongst ourselves, and then engage with our representatives. We elected them but they still need to know how we want them to solve these problems. Discuss, argue, engage – better policy is on us.