 Thanks for coming back to think tech Hawaii rule of law and a new abnormal, whatever that may be. And we're entering a new year, whether it's going to be a new phase or not, we can talk about that some and see where everyone thinks we might be heading and what to look for and what to look out for. We have with us today. Tina Patterson mediator arbitrator consultant. And master of many trades. And David Larson, immediate past chair of the American bar association section of dispute resolution. Professor at Mitchell Hamlin school of law in Saint Paul and lead innovator for the New York. Online dispute resolution access to justice project, which is now up and going strong. Tina David welcome aboard happy new year. Happy new year. So, where are we headed. Any idea at all. I'm not sure the Republic has had any idea, although they now have a house majority. One place where apparently we are headed is towards investigations of the Biden administration. In spite of the fact that they ran a platform of fighting inflation and getting handle on immigration. It doesn't look like that's where they're going to start their efforts. So, you know, look at the committee assignments. And then you're going to look at the places where Lauren Obert is being placed and Paul goes are and Marjorie Taylor green. And they're just going to be, it's going to be vengeful. So that's a little discouraging. Well, was it the William Faulkner phrase, or Shakespeare that said all sound and theory signifying nothing. I don't remember which of the two it is, but maybe Faulkner borrowed from Shakespeare and his novel. That's more likely. After watching the effort to appoint a speaker and how long that took and how chaotic that was. It's just a frightening single as to what the next two years are going to look like. And, you know, McCarthy had such a, such a tenuous grip on that speaker position and one person can move now to oust him. So he's going to be trying to kowtow to everybody. So I don't know what's going to happen. I'm really concerned about, for example, the first thing that we're talking about today, the debt ceiling. Now, are we going to be able to come to some agreement on extending the debt ceiling? I don't know when I was watching those hearings. There was a group of. Never Kevin people that clearly love the camera, and they just love the attention they were getting because they would not vote for McCarthy. And I think we're going to see that played again. That as we have debates about extending the debt limit, there's going to be a group of people who will resist that. Because they know the camera will keep coming back to them and they'll get interviewed after every session breaks. And they're just going to love that. And it's about, it's about them and their reputation and their exposure. And it's not about the, the welfare of the country. David, I have to agree when I think about the lessons or things that we'll see in 2023, I think what's playing out now is a lesson or should look like a lesson in leadership. What resistance looks like what resilience looks like. What just playing ops being obstinate. Some applaud the new speaker of the house because he was resilient. I personally don't see it as resilient. There's a time and a place when the greater good means stepping aside. And I think I think we got less and was lost. What we're seeing is the jockeying method part of it is because of the position that was taken. I think we're also seeing this play out. At what point do you say enough is enough. When do I need to step aside and I think about today's headline regarding the Prime Minister in New Zealand saying, you know, it's time. No, no, when the white know when the writing is on the wall and it's time to step aside. Now, of course, more play out. I think about this again, thinking about the speaker, the current speaker, did it have to did we have to have this course of action? Or could he have collaborated? And I think we'll see this ongoing tension because he took such a hard stand. And what he did was not necessarily negotiating in good faith. It was with an ultimate goal that I think has both alienated as well as put some people in an oppositional position with him. The debt ceiling is of concern. We now have agencies that are saying, you know, we need this funding. There's a possibility that we may not get our budget. And again, the general public looking at that, not knowing that the last time we had a government shutdown, what that what happened. Oh, and when it was extended, it impacted day to day activities when employment benefits to individuals paying our people who are in the arms of forces. So, you know, it's not it's no longer just a matter of the speaker wants to grandstand. It's there's an impact on the day to day lives of people. Yeah, so discouraging because last week we had five days of stock market increases, you know, inflation is beginning to go down. It's like, oh man, are we beginning to turn the corner maybe we are. It'd be the worst time to suddenly have that debt ceiling not extended and then backtrack the gains we've made recently. So a lot of people are crossing their fingers hoping that something's going to happen. Yeah, and I said that I can do some kinds of accounting things to extend our, you know, we won't default on our debts until June. I don't know if that was a good thing that encourages people to oh, you know, got time to play with so now I can take a hard line and refuse to negotiate. So I don't know if that was a good thing to say, but apparently it wouldn't be an outright default for a few months. But the fact that you'd start to have to play with your accounting is not encouraging and that's not going to help your debt rating. Exactly. Exactly. I think the other area that we're going to see a lesson and it's, I think it's something where we can literally make amends or ask. I'm going to say make amends, but I really think it's more federal agency saying how do you handle classified documents, regardless of party affiliation. When you leave office, if it's marked as classified and there are specific markings on classified documents, they're not for you to take. It's very clear classified documents are not for you to take. They're not part of your your personal library. So I think how this how this is going to be handled moving forward is delicate. I'm a, I think very highly of the current president, but waiting 60 days. And he had legal counsel that said wait 60 days and there's more documents that are appearing. We've got to come up with a better way of managing records. We know what happens when bad actors getting their hands on classified records and what that could mean in terms of people's lives being put at risk, but also just the general welfare of the nation. Sometimes the documents are, you know, rather benign, but sometimes they actually have names and roles that people are involved in or intended actions that literally put us in a position of a general risk. I've been monitoring this and I've been very concerned of just, you know, oh, we found more classified documents. Okay. For those 1 plus million people who had their records when the office of personal management's database was hacked into several years ago. That debacle has never ended. And now we've got classified documents that are freely flowing around. You know, this is the next wave that we can stem and I think we'll see this played out for the for the balance of the year as we have a former president who wants to run for office again. This is this was a concern when that person was elected into office and it should remain a concern if he does pursue as he's indicated he wants to be reelected. Well, you know, it's been discouraging, at least to me that the Biden administration and not been more forthcoming about what's been happening recently. It doesn't seem like it's a great volume of documents. I don't know why there's been this resistance to talk about it. It's puzzling and it's discouraging because it draws a parallel to what Trump did even though it's not of the same magnitude but come on be more forthcoming about what happened I don't understand this this resistance to talk about that. And as you mentioned, Tina, we want to make sure we have policies that you can't take things as cool souvenirs. Exactly. Describe the folders, the empty folders that he had. Why not take China, you know, just take a plate or two. You don't need to take the documents. I want to go back to the debt ceiling and the economic because I think we are seeing this play out and we are seeing people literally pushing back on what do we need for day to day necessities and what does this mean in terms of the elected officials? People are concerned gas prices, food prices. I've seen numerous memes the past two weeks about with egg prices going up that, you know, don't give your beloved a ring, give your beloved an egg, you know, things like that. At the end of the day, what does this mean in terms of who we put in office and how economically savvy they are or what they understand as far as the budget and what the trickle down is. And I'm not talking about trickle down economics. I'm talking about the trickle down those monies and how those monies are used in earmarked. How people say, are they safe? I think this is all going to play out again when we see the 2024 elections and some of the platforms some of these candidates will take because people are saying I just can't. I can't survive on this. This is not tenable long term for me. You know, I often wonder about what can I do up here in St. Paul, Minnesota to change anything. And one thing I think we can do is talk about accountability, accountability for citizens participation in the democratic process. Even if you are voting, you know, think about who you're voting for the policies are advocating and the actions are taking and what are the consequences. Sometimes I have some good friends that have voted for Trump. We've had some outcomes that they didn't anticipate and they don't support. But when I ask them about their responsibility for what happened, it's, I'm not responsible at all. And, you know, they're not making the connection between their, their vote and their selection of a particular individual and what that individual then does. I think people need to be reminded that you are responsible for the people you put in office they're your agents, they're, you know, they said what they're going to do and you have an obligation to investigate what their history has been and what it's like they'll do. And when those things happen, you have some responsibility for that. And maybe when we vote again, you'll look at your vote a little differently. You know, I, it's interesting you mentioned that because I think about programs like I civics, which is a program for elementary school children to learn about civics. And the cornerstone of democracy program that has been led by the American Bar Association. I know the current president, Deborah Enix Ross is very much interested in one of those cornerstones is civics. And it's that knowing who's running for office and where do they stand. What is it that they're going to do and the packing the responsibility to say, let me get my hands on information about how what this impacts how this impacts my community, my state, my region versus the, well, you know, it happened. It's not really my fault. I think that you're right. The accountability is got to be there. And I think there's a there's a group of citizens that are saying, we want to know how we can be more responsible. We want to know how to be more involved. Fortunately, we're seeing younger people are saying, we want to better understand this, because the fallout that we're seeing in the positions that people are taking. Are not, are not supportive of what's in the best interest of the everyday person. I think you hit it on the nail at the beginning. Yeah, and you know, when we look at the, the recent committee assignments, and where people are ending up, and what the never Kevin people were able to negotiate to switch their votes from support from denying the speakership to McCarthy to just present. And so their votes weren't counted and you could get the, get the bare minimum majority. You're getting some frightening people on very powerful committees, and people who in the past have advocated violence. You got Paul Gosar. If you remember, did that anime that anime about him killing the AOC. Yeah, I'm going in a sword at President Biden. I'm the outright violence. And yet now he's on a, now he's on the oversight committee, which will be investigating the administration that's like a, that's, that's frightening. And so it's brightening to me that somebody that has that orientation and perspective now is supposed to have oversold over the administration, when was posting, reposting tweets about him swinging swords at the president. That's, that's disturbing. So here you say that do you think that a, I guess a parallel to the accountability is stability. And is that going to be lost in the narrative if we're, we're looking for people to be accountable, can you be accountable without being civil. Well, you know, has that train left the station. That's, that's, you know, that's a whole nother discussion about whether or not the growth of technology and virtual communication has eroded our conscience in terms of our interactions the feeling that I'm, you know, I might be willing to do things online that I would face, because I just feel that separation, I can be so much more aggressive outlandish online than it would ever be to someone's face. It seems like we're in that space now. So, yeah, I think there's a real concern about, can we recapture some elements some feeling of civility. So, we can kind of diffuse some of these situations. I think that's, that's really important. I think we probably need to remind ourselves that that consciously or unconsciously we've kind of drifted in that direction to think that that's okay to interact in that way. And we probably need to remind all of ourselves that we need to step back and ask about our, our interactions and particular virtual interactions. And, and really, do we want to continue doing like that because it isn't productive. And it just escalates. And, and so yeah, looking forward that's a concern can we can we get our arms around that and have more of a more civil interactions even when we disagree. As opposed to ramping up the, the emotion. Chuck, we, we kind of took this first. I know you probably have other questions for us though. I'll pause. I'd love to hear what else you want to ask. No, I think your folks are on a roll and those are really great insights. And one of the things that this highlights is that for the Republicans. Kind of the Trump mega one trick pony modality was get control of the narrative fill it with your talking points. Forget about whether they have anything to do with the truth. Forget about where you got it whether the sources reliable or verifiable or not. And forget about the impact it has on people individually or even collectively. Okay, if it serves your talking point, you're controlling the script. But your points have made it very clear that right now nobody's in control of that script. If anything, the Republicans who have any political sense should be thinking, we need to craft a script for 2024. We need to be persuasive, pragmatic and successful for us. And they can't even do that within their own party. A couple of things one that came out. I think just today is part of McCarthy's deal was to allow a very small minority group of GOP representatives to present a bill to eliminate the IRS. To eliminate our tax system and change to a 30% sales tax administered at the state level across the board day. It's not going to go anywhere. But to have a speaker of the house who's agreed to say you can present this you can put this out there you can consume time effort and money on this. When we're facing debt ceiling when we're facing voting rights when we're facing educational lags of a year or two for the youth who are going to be our future. When we're facing health care problems that we've now named the newest variant. These are serious concerns. Well the whole idea of a bill to remove the IRS kind of subcategory of that that that did happen. Remember that we discussed a few minutes ago the platform of, oh, we're going to we're going to get arms around inflation and and reduce the budget deficit. One of the first pieces of legislation that the house is pushing is a bill to defund the increase for the IRS directed towards going after wealthy tax cheats. You know the Congressional Budget Office has estimated that that bill can bring in $180 billion. I mean there's not much tax fraud going on at the higher income levels, and they're going to defund that. So, so if you're really if you're really sincere about when they reduce the deficit and get control of the budget, you don't do things like that. That kind of that that dishonesty is really troubling. I'm stunned at the 30% sales tax. Again, we talked about people's spending power has diminished over the past three years. The 30% sales tax literally makes it, again, almost impossible for basic necessities, not to mention. Yes, there is a there is a population that is enjoying purchasing luxury items, but for the day to day average person, the 30% sales tax is literally going to mean what what am I going to get now with the disposable income that I have, and I've got to make a choice as to what that is going to be. I think it also is going to put burden on states states now have a difficult time with what to do with their sales tax and how to distribute that sales tax. The end goal is to give each state an opportunity to to use those funds as they see fit. Are they going to do it in a way that's both responsible and allows greater benefit to those most in need. I'm not so certain of that. I think it's a short sided and it's literally done just as a knee jerk reaction or to get media attention. And it signals the direction that they've made clear, which is, they know they're not going to get that bill approved. They won't get it through the Senate and they certainly would not get it past presidential approval without veto, but if they're bargaining position is to cut back on social security on Medicare on benefits. That's hitting exactly the same group that you're talking about. In the middle class and everyone economically below that. Yeah, it's frightening. The whole idea of a flat tax, it just rejects the idea of. And that the theory of a correct progressive tax that some people are clearly able to pay more. And there's nothing in just about that. And you can talk about how wealth inequities are created and all the forces that work in our society and a lot of which are not well identified or historic have to do with different kinds of biases and you know people this whole idea that I achieve my wealth independently all on my own and I earned it it's mine. I should keep as much as you know that's that's that's such a fallacy that you know I think that the progressive income tax is one way to to address to recognize that to say that. You know, there have been inequities throughout a society that have allowed certain groups in a disproportionate way to have financial success. And, you know, we're having difficulty addressing those in a societal way. But one way we can do it maybe a blunter way is with a progressive income tax. And, you know, so the so I think there's some real equities built into a progressive income tax in contrast to what people are saying is that oh a flat tax is much more fair. And it's hard to think of a country anywhere certainly the leading economic countries in Europe are great examples of acts that you do have to have a safety net you do have to have government protection. And people who aren't necessarily economically or educationally or in terms of health or ability or other factors, able to manage to produce at the level that a very, very small percentage of people who get rewarded for that in this country are able to do. And it's ironic as Heather Cox Richardson one of our legal historical and political scholars has pointed out, the Republicans 160 years ago put that graduated tax system into place in order to fund the protection of the country against a regime of systematic inequality and slavery. And those are exactly the same principles that they're now rejecting as socialists and as shifting money from the wealthy who they claim have earned it to those who need the assistance to be able to live at a level that offers fair opportunities for them and their children and children behind Yeah, Chuck, before we run out of time, we're almost out of time. It's such a such a delicious topic. We can't say something about George Santos. You know, we've kind of alluded to the fact that there's a lot of dishonesty going on and people are telling lies. This is like the culmination of that. This is like, this is a test case. How far are we willing to go to tolerate this because you look at this person that like everything. It's just the most appendix incredible lies you've ever heard of my parents, you know, flood the Holocaust, they didn't do that. He talks about his Jewishness. He's not Jewish. The craziest ones were, I was a volleyball star for Baruch College, which he never even attended. Then he goes into great detail how they beat the Ivy League and beat Yale and he didn't play. He didn't go to college there. He didn't play volleyball. They, Baruch College didn't even play Yale during the period of time that he would have been out if he had been on a team. They didn't even play them. It's just, the lies are so unbelievable. Then the question is, you know, what are the Republicans going to do about that? Are they going to say that? No, that's okay. We're not going to do any discipline. We're not going to put pressure on him to resign. We're perfectly comfortable with that. I mean, you hope that there will be people in the party and there are some Republicans stepping up and even in New York saying this guy's got to resign. But hopefully that movement comes forward and this idea that you can tell us as many lies as you want, as stupendous as you want, so long as you can get away with it, it's fine. That idea has got to be slapped down. No, exactly right. It's shifting to a focus on, well, they're going to need to get him on campaign finance if they want to get him out of there is what the Republicans are saying. And Kevin McCarthy goes on national TV and says, hey, he was duly elected. It's not our place to displace him. It's the voters who put in there. How can that possibly be duly elected? If I study the Brooklyn Bridge that I don't own, is that a duly established legal transaction? But you're right. Truth has nothing to do with it. The source of the information, no matter how impeachable, has nothing to do with it. And the impact on people and their lives, the very constituents that they're responsible to has nothing to do with for them. This has to come out. Somehow the Democrats have to make this not just a talking point, but an understanding that people keep in mind when they choose. When to vote, how to vote, who to vote for. Yeah, we talk about the fragility of the Democratic model. And if you can see people like this being successful, that clearly arose confidence in democracy. It's like, yeah, I guess the model doesn't work. If someone can do this and be fine and get elected and remain there, this is not a good model. It doesn't work. So people lose even more faith in democracy. Is it time for us to consider term limited senators and House of Representatives. Well, he's got a two year term, but will he last for all of that part of it. It's interesting that at the community level, they've already cut him off in New York. They don't have anything to do with him. He will not be part of the communications or decision making at their level. And one of the things that's going on that the press hasn't paid attention to in DC right now is the mayor's meeting and NPR had two mayors on last night. They were affable they were congenial. You couldn't even tell which party either one of them was allied with, because he said look, our job is to get things done. And we have to answer to people who have access to us on a daily basis. We can't put party lines and party platforms first, we have to put results first. And we have to be in the same room as people with different party affiliations on orientation, because it's the only way to get things done and it's the only way to respond to our constituents. How do we get people at upper levels of leadership to recognize and honor that responsibility? It's all the time that we have today. David, Tina, thanks much. Think about that. Maybe that's a good start point for next time. Think Tech Boy, rule of law in the new abnormal. Come back and rejoin us. We'll be back in a couple of weeks. Take care in a lot. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.