This Thanksgiving, feel the warmth as all four sides of the political table call to pass the Pro-Family Act and the sweet potato casserole. It might pay for itself, too. Welcome to Tiebreaker Tuesday, when we help POLI THE AI break the ties on difficult roles to call for or against the Pro-Family Act and overrule POLI’s general calls for specific reasons.
Pro-Family Act and the Abortion Debate…
…Have nothing to do with each other. The Pro-Family Act and our Abortion SCALE compromise are two separate ideas, perhaps twins.
In the abortion debate, there are about the same number of viable fetuses terminated as there are mothers who will go on to die in childbirth who might have otherwise had an early-term abortion.
Finding the moral high ground is tough when the Abortion SCALE Act compromise eliminates about 6,000 deaths each, 12,000 total. Our Abortion SCALE Act is currently #11 on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL).
But, no paragraph on abortion law should end without discussing support for families that do go on to have children. That’s what the Pro-Family FUN Act is about.
What Could Be In
the Pro-Family FUN Act?
Pro-Family FUN Act would improve maternal health through expanded care programs and data gathering, providing financial relief via tax credits and tax-free diapers/baby items, removing marriage penalties in welfare programs, and increasing funding for adoption services.
A. Improves Maternal Health: The act enhances maternal well-being by expanding care programs and collecting data on causes of maternal mortality.
B. Financial Relief: Families benefit from increased tax credits, extended Medicaid coverage, and tax-free essential items like diapers.
C. Removes Marriage Penalties: The act eliminates financial disincentives for marriage, making it easier for couples to tie the knot without fiscal worries.
D. Expands Child Tax Credits: More families can take advantage of child tax credits, easing the financial burden of raising kids.
E. Protects Pregnant Workers: The act safeguards the employment rights of pregnant workers, ensuring they’re not discriminated against.
F. Funding for Adoption and Foster Care: Additional funding is allocated to support adoption and foster care systems, making it easier for children to find loving homes.
G. Parental Leave Accounts: New accounts allow parents to save money in a tax-advantaged manner for parental leave, providing financial security during crucial family moments.
H. Raises Limits on Dependent Care Accounts: The act increases the amount that can be contributed to dependent care accounts, offering more financial flexibility for families.
I. Deductible Caregiver Expenses: Expenses related to caregiving become tax-deductible, providing financial relief to those caring for family members.
J. Flexible Child Care Options: The act encourages a variety of childcare options through flexibility measures, pilot programs, and incentives.
K. Universal Pre-K: Access to preschool education becomes universal, setting children on a path to educational success early on.
L. Full-Day School and Year-Round Calendars: The act supports full-day schooling and year-round educational calendars, aiding working parents and enhancing educational outcomes.
M. Summer Programs: Additional summer programs are introduced to keep children engaged and assist working parents during school breaks.
All these solutions would also increase socialization, which appears to be in serious decline in the US. Each lettered point contributes to the act’s overarching goal: to have FUN by fostering unwavering nurture.
Does the Pro-Family Act
Breakeven Financially?
The financial implications of the FUN Pro-Family Act present a nuanced picture of costs and benefits, making its breakeven analysis intriguing. The Act’s estimated annual cost of around $102 billion covers various initiatives, including maternal health, tax credits, adoption support, childcare, and educational programs.
Offsetting these costs are substantial long-term benefits. Crime-related costs could decrease by approximately $20 billion annually due to improved education, financial stability, and community cohesion. Moreover, the Act could enhance productivity significantly, potentially adding around $575 billion to the economy through childcare and increased workforce participation rates.
Considering the historic tax revenue to GDP ratio of 17%, this productivity boost could translate to over $90 billion in additional tax revenue. Coupled with the $20 billion savings in crime costs, the Pro-Family Act seems not only morally and ethically the right thing to do but potentially self-sustaining, paying for itself while delivering considerable societal and economic benefits.
SPOILER
ALERT
If you’d prefer first to role-play this week’s puzzle, swoop over to the…
If you want to dive deeply into this topic, then take a gander at the…
Puzzle Drop Introduction
MONDAY
Giving Thanks By Taking Care of Our American Family
Now, back to Tiebreaker Tuesday…
Let’s Start
at the End
The Two Tiebreaker Rounds ended with a score of
YES 25 vs. NO 9,
so Team YES picks up
16 roles overall.
Should We Pass a Pro-Family Act?
POLI had support as VAST SUPERMAJORITY. Our editors agreed and were slightly more optimistic. We predict a 76% ±4 (11 roles) VAST SUPERMAJORITY of roles in this country to support the Pro-Family Act, including a majority of each of the four sides of the political table, making this a US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy idea.
90% and up Near Unanimous
80% – 89% Near Consensus
75% -79% VAST SUPERMAJORITY
67% – 74% Strong Supermajority
60% – 66% Supermajority
50% – 59% Majority
By Contrast
SCOTUS’s approval rating is 40%,
the media is 27%, and
Congress is 13%.
The average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) Sweet Sixteen is 76%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 5x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual.
Now, back to the beginning.
Tiebreaker Tuesday for
a Pro-Family Act
POLI had these roles tied:
Sudden Depth
— 1ST HALF —
Note: the number (#) after the role is the primary key reason from the PolicyKeys game board, the gamification of our One Page Narrative Tool (OPNT).
— ‘NO’ —
These roles are leaning against the Pro-Family Act because of…
Bureaucratic Expansion (#4)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Liberty Republicans know that birthrates must climb, and just restricting abortion rights alone might not solve the problem.
Agriculture States know that without larger families to help do the daily chores, crop yields will fall.
‘NO’ because
We can’t afford the Nanny State (#24)
However, they have second thoughts because…
CPAs and Financial Planners know that productivity will rise if there is expanded childcare, universal pre-K, day-long school, and year-long school.
‘NO’ because of
Market Distortions (#28)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Business Independents suspect that pure free market solutions and socialist solutions are both too extreme, and there needs to be compromise.
Energy States anticipate that low birth rates and keeping immigration low means that the carrot of incentivizing couples to have children may be the only answer.
These roles are leaning In Favor of the
Pro-Family Act
— ‘YES’ —
Because it
Supports Population Growth (#1)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Restaurants have some reservations as one size doesn’t fit all regarding family and privacy.
Auto Services might put their support into reverse if they see that it’s just another way for the government to interfere in the private sector.
Durables support may not be so durable as the US can’t afford to turn into a nanny state.
Gun Owners may be forced to reload their opinions as local government budgets may be strained.
Big Agriculture may have to grow into a different opinion if government handouts sprout sloth, as agriculture is already a difficult business.
‘YES’ because it
Increases our Global Standing (#3)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Brands might have to rebrand their opinion if this results in supply chain shortages and an inflation foe.
‘YES’ because of
Community Cohesion (#7)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Democratic Leadership might have to yield to majority pressure to keep deficits down.
‘YES’ because of
Now and Future Prosperity (#15)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Shopkeepers may have to bag their initial support if it raises their taxes.
Food Chains might have to check out if they can’t get workers to keep the shelves filled.
Major Builders may have to deconstruct their opinion if it leads to even larger deficits.
‘YES’ because of
Relief for Struggling Families (#23)
However, they have second thoughts because…
The Free Press might change their opinion as there are too many ways to abuse the system.
‘YES’ because of
Workforce Development (#25)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Telecom may have to change their number if the government overreach starts to resemble robocalling.
Party Favor Republicans aren’t wallflowers when it comes to protecting their swag, and spending here means cutting there.
Urban Investors can see the meter is running on the tax breaks expiring in 2025.
Big Tech is sensitive to online privacy when it comes to government meddling in family affairs.
‘YES’ because it
Supports Working Families (#27)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Multi/Nationals have multitudes of employees and are concerned that government handouts promote sloth, which doesn’t service their customers.
Managers need their teams to show up for their shifts, and while too generous family leave sounds good, customer complaints don’t.
‘YES’ because of
Affordable Healthcare (#29)
However, they have second thoughts because…
For Seniors, their kiddos and grandkids treating them like an ATM is getting old, but Congress keeps threatening to cut Social Security, which might happen if the Pro-Family Act takes precedence.
The Taker States don’t want to hear about losing any earmarks, and the Pro-Family Act might draw unwanted attention.
Should We Pass a
Pro-Family Act?
— 1ST HALF —
Score
YES 19 v NO 5
Team YES picks up 14 Roles
— 2ND HALF —
Calling Fouls
on POLI’s Play
These are where the editors specifically disagreed with POLI’s general call.
Should a Pro-Family Act be Passed?
— ‘NO’ —
These roles are leaning against the Pro-Family FUN Act because it…
Will Increase Population (#2)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Planet First Democrats, while aware that population growth drives carbon emissions, they also want to drive around their families in their own EVs.
‘NO’ because of
Government Overreach (#8)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Governors can’t abide being governed, but having less stress put on State services for families is appealing.
‘NO’ because
We can’t afford a nanny state (#24)
However, they have second thoughts because…
401k and IRA Holders, while appreciating the wonders of the free market, might appreciate that the primary driver of profits is household formations.
—’YES’—
Supports Population Growth (#1)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Republican Hawks know without soldiers, we can’t defend our interests, but they might have to do an about-face over becoming a nanny state.
‘YES’ Because it
Invests in human capital (#1)
However, they have second thoughts because…
C-Suite Executives can appreciate how sweet government programs can be to their team but may sour on the sloth that it might promote.
‘YES’ because of
Now and future prosperity (#5)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Lifestyle Businesses are big fans of work-life balance but may become unbalanced about sloth at work.
Home Services make themselves comfortable with increased household formation but are wary of increased taxes.
E-platforms are totally in line with customers having more money to spend but won’t go online with their support for higher taxes.
‘YES’ because it
Supports working families (#5)
However, they have second thoughts because…
Local Builders and their teams are mostly young families and can hammer support for new household formations, but they’ll raise the roof if it comes to raising taxes.
— 2nd Half —
Score
YES 6 v NO 3
Team YES picks up 3
CONCLUSION
The Two Tiebreaker Rounds ended with a score of
YES 25 vs. NO 8,
so Team YES picks up
17 roles overall.
Should We Pass a Pro-Family Act?
POLI had support as VAST SUPERMAJORITY. Our editors agreed and were slightly more optimistic. We predict a 76% ±4 (11 roles) VAST SUPERMAJORITY of roles in this country to support the Pro-Family Act, including a majority of each of the four sides of the political table, making this US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) worthy idea.
90% and up Near Unanimous
80% – 89% NEAR CONSENSUS
75% -79% VAST SUPERMAJORITY
67% – 74% Strong Supermajority
60% – 66% Supermajority
50% – 59% Majority
By Contrast
SCOTUS’s approval rating is 40%,
the media is 27%, and
Congress is 13%.
The average score of the policies on the PolicyKeys™ US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) Sweet Sixteen is 76%, with many above 80%—Politics 4.0 is already a 2x to 5x better model of US political sentiment and direction than politics as usual.
Cue the
Patriotic Music
Imagine an America not paralyzed by political squawking. A Parrot-otopia oasis in a desert of division. Where the sounds of the silent super-majority drown out the droning of the hyper-partisan parrots.
We’ll be freed from the cages of entrenched ideology to fly higher in the big sky of American beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. To boldly go where no political parrot has gone before—rating solutions with a nonpartisan score.
Anthem
Where Can We Agree?
(Why Don’t You Want To Know?)
Methodology
Politics 1.0 is each party wanting to be a one-party system. Then, Politics 2.0 is the two-party gridlock that blocks the silent supermajority from getting what they need. Next, Politics 3.0 is all the noise from special interest groups trying to influence us to see things their way. Finally, Politics 4.0 ranks solutions with a nonpartisan score and lets the best ideas rise up the leaderboard so people can choose.
Our One-Page Narrative Tool, game board, and AI are based on a ground truth:
“There’s a time to save
and a time to spend,
a time for freedom
and a time for laws.
Where can we agree?”
This yields four legs of the political table: Abundance, Thrift, Governance, and Commerce, poetically our Political DNA, ACGT.
A Level Playing Field
The four sides of the table are…
Abundance Governance (AG)
National Public Sector and NGOs,
Abundance Commerce (AC)
Technology and New Businesses,
Thrift Government (TG)
Local Municipalities, Guilds, and Consumers, and
Thrift Commerce (TC)
Established Supply Chains and Jobs.
Each side has a bias for change and a bias for the status quo. We scan these eight Information Walls for Key YES and NO Reasons, no cherry-picking.
The Four Laws of
Public Policy Formation
The First Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with short-term focus will naturally protect their wages, jobs, status, profits, and wealth.
The Second Law of Public Policy Formation is that people with a longer-term focus place bets to make life better, longer, easier, or different.
The Third Law of Public Policy Formation is that the clash between the short-term and long-term causes noise, angst, conflict, and harm.
The Fourth Law of Public Policy Formation is to take into account various solutions’ nonpartisan scores before making up your own mind.
A Treasure Hunt
We search for solutions with the highest hypothetical nonpartisan rating. Something that would solve 80% of the problem with the simplest 20% solution. The Pareto principle, hence a parrot-topia.
The Political Parrots have a Key reason they don’t want us to know about because it ruins their argument. We search for these, like a treasure hunt, and sort them using our EMIT format: Emotions, Money, Information, and Timespan. We listen for these key signals in the political noise.
Key Reasons can look similar, so we edit for redundancy and look for errors, omissions, and innovations.
Definition of
Political Parrots
Are you making up your own mind or marching to the beat of a political parrot?
- Political Parrots get paid to squawk the same thing over and over again.
- They don’t listen if you’re not paying.
- They don’t fully understand what they’re saying.
- They are charming and sport every color.
We look to filter out the GRIFTERS, Gaslighting, Red-herrings, Idolizing, False-dilemmas, Tunnel-vision, Exclusions, Reductions, and Straw-man arguments.
We think you can think for yourself. Where can we agree?
Birds of a Feather AI
Once the Key Reasons are set, we prescore the puzzle using the Birds of a Feather AI for loose ties to beliefs, attitudes, values, and ethics. Over 16 million combinations are possible for the 128 roles. The game board starts balanced at zero, with an equal bias for change and the status quo.
We then prescore the puzzle using 56 arch-type roles that best embody each of the 56 loose ties. This yields a general bias for change or status quo and reveals ties.
The editors review all 128 roles for specific reasons and overrule the general AI where necessary. These are noted in the Tuesday Tiebreaker article.
Then, we score the puzzle on all four sides of the Political Table: eight Information Walls, sixteen Subcultural Windows, sixteen Bias Columns, and sixteen Influence Rows.
SAT9 AI
When the scoring is done, a second AI looks for inconsistencies using the SAT9 AI filter (Situational Assessment Tool). This is 256 ‘supreme courts’ where each role is the chief justice in a presumed 5-4 and 4-5 bench. This generates a ± error margin.
The engine for the AI is our One Page Narrative Tool (OPNT), which we gamified for role-playing at policykeys.com. We call our AI, POLI for Political Omnibus Leadership Initiative.
You can read more about PolicyKeys™ in the upcoming book, Politics 4.0: How Gamification, AI, and National Idea Leaderboards Can Help You Depolarize the World. The Observatory of Public Sector Innovation (OPSI) at the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has recognized PolicyKeys™ for digital engagement.
A new PolicyKeys™
Where Can We Agree?® puzzle
drops every
Monday at 7 a.m. Eastern at PolicyKeys.com.
PolicyKeys™ Where Can We Agree? is a real-life role-playing game. Each week, there are sixteen sets of eight ‘rival’ roles. Sit awhile in each of their eight chairs and predict whether most people in those roles would say Yes or No to the week’s question. The best ideas land on the US Public Policy Leaderboard (US-PPL) if a majority of each of the four sides of the political table agree.
YOU CAN PLAY THIS WEEK’S PUZZLE AT POLICYKEYS.COM.
Fly
Higher
What the data says about Abortion in the US
Pew
Death in the United States
Statista
Births in the United States
Statista
We disagree on abortion. Here’s a pro-family agenda both parties can support.
Washington Post Opinion
This is what a faith-based pro-family agenda looks like
Sojourners
A Conservative case for a pro-family policy
Public Discourse
How much does it cost to raise a child?
USA Facts
17% of US Families with Children are Food Insecure
USDA
Family Homelessness
National Alliance to End Homelessness
63% of Americans are Living Paycheck to Paycheck
CNBC
Bankruptcies have surged 17% in the first half of 2023
Reuters
Protecting the Sovereign’s Money Monopoly
Yale
Almost Half of Workers are in Low Paid Jobs
CBS
US Maternal Mortality Rates
Statista
The US Middle Class Has Shrunk by 11% in Five Decades
Pew Research
Poll: Views on Family Policy
Lake Research Partners
Which States Still Tax Diapers
Kiplinger
Marriage Calculator
Urban Institute
Fifteen States Have A Marriage Tax Penalty
Smart Asset
Universal Pre-K
Alliance for Early Success
Long-Term Gain for Longer School Days
Journal of Human Resources
The Pros and Cons of Year-Round Schooling
US News and World Report
How Welfare Programs Discourage Marriage:
The Case for Pre-K Education Subsidies
Heritage Foundation
Eight Adoption Grants You Should Know About
Lifesong
Government Funding for Adoption
Family Education
DCFSA: Dependent Care Flexible Spending Accounts
PayFlex
Innovations for Universal Child Care
New America
70 Innovative Companies Leading the Way on Parental Leave
National Partnership for Women and Families
Social and Emotional Learning
CASEL
2023 US GDP Estimate
Statista
Providing For Life Act
Rubio.Senate.Gov
Pro-Family Fiscal Policy
Institute for Family Studies
Freeing American Families
CATO
The Parent Trap
Brookings Institute
Universal Preschool: Congress Should Proceed With Caution
CATO
It takes guts to see things from all four sides of the political table.
[::]