Wrap-up

OAW 2010 wrapped up on Friday with our last day of meetings. As is often the case, Congress was out of session, so most members had gone back to their districts/states on Thursday night, which tones down the atmosphere and energy on the Hill. It also usually means that we get more focused attention from the staffers we meet with, who are not torn in as many different directions with their bosses out of town. The exceptions to that rule this week were the staffers whose offices are deeply involved in bank reform, who spent the day knee-deep in negotiation of new rules for derivatives.

Now I'm finally back at Hard Times Cafe having my traditional OAW lunch of Chili Bubba and sweet tea. I'm usually here just before OAW starts, not after it ends -- just another tragic delay indirectly caused by a volcano named Eyjafjallajoekull.

Before I wrap up this blog for the year, here are a couple of random items I now realize I let slip by through the week:

-       On Monday, three of us (myself, Kathleen deCarbuccia and Jackie Bugnion) were interviewed by Brian Knowleton of the New York Times. The interview was not for a specific article, but was part of Brian’s years-long, ongoing effort to keep up with our issues, so that he can publish something when the time is right.

-       I discovered this week that accessible wifi has finally reached Capitol Hill. That came in handy for on-the-fly research between meetings, but didn’t help much with this blog. After I posted one item using Capitol Hill wifi, I got an error message each time I went back to the blog and couldn’t access it again. Here’s what it said: “Access restriction. The category listed is filtered due to unsafe content. Reason: Sex.” I don’t know what sexual content the system found in my ramblings, but hopefully that will help drive traffic to the blog.

-       Looking back at the five years I’ve been doing OAW and, in particular, the three years I’ve been doing this blog, I now realize that I should have been giving an annual award to the strangest staffer we encounter. This year’s award would have to go to the military affairs staffer we saw in a certain Senate office (we sometimes see the military staffer because they also cover foreign affairs, which is the category some offices put our issues into). When I say “military affairs staffer”, I’d bet you’re picturing a frighteningly large jock with biceps as thick as the tires on my Jeep. What was noteworthy about this particular military affairs staffer was how many ways she was not what you are picturing. First of all, she was a she; second, her voice was dog-whistle-high-pitched; and third, she was decked out in eight shades of pink. She looked like a schoolteacher, but on the inside she is probably the Marine you were picturing.

Looking back at the week, I think this OAW went relatively well, particularly in light of the extraordinary obstacle thrown at us by our new nemesis Eyjafjallajoekull. Many of our delegates from Europe were unable to attend, but were still able to participate in certain meetings by conference call. The rest of us were either already in the US or were able to reroute through another part of the world to get to DC.

My hope is that our work this week on tax laid the foundation for future change. While it is unlikely that Congress will act quickly to address the issue, they hopefully won’t move quickly in the other direction either by repealing the foreign earned income exclusion that so many overseas Americans count on. Most offices told us that wide-ranging tax reform is likely in the next year or two and that it was important for us to be there this year (as it will be next year) to plant our flag on this issue so we are not, yet again, the low-hanging fruit that is picked to pay for something else.

I end this week even more convinced than before that in order to make concrete progress on our issues, we need to take this effort up a notch by enlisting new sources and types of support and by creating a PAC through which we would centralize our resources and manage our initiatives. If you have thoughts on how to do that or any other feedback on our advocacy work in Washington, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at andy@aaro.org.

Write a letter

A recurring theme in our visits to Capitol Hill over the years is the feedback we receive from many offices saying that they need to receive letters from their constituents before they can help us with our issues. Even when they understand that there are roughly six million of us abroad and that we therefore represent, on average, 2% of their constituency, they often tell us that they need to actually hear from some of those 2% directly in order to act. This make perfect sense and is arguably a positive reflection on the system -- they want to take orders from the people who elect them, not from an association that may or may not have actual members from that district. So we need you to contact your Senators and your Representative.

Along the same lines, we are sometimes told that we need companies to contact the Representatives representing their districts and the Senators representing their states, since they often represent a lot of jobs back home. In particular, they need to help make the connection between tax policy and trade promotion by telling Congress that double taxation is impeding their ability to send their people overseas to compete effectively in foreign markets.

Whether the message is coming from an individual or a company, there are a few key points I would suggest including. First, ask them to support the Working American Competitiveness Act (HR 1798). Similarly, we would advise that you ask them to oppose the provision of the Bipartisan Tax Fairness and Simplification Act of 2010 (S 3018) that eliminates the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion. Finally, it would be useful to ask members of both the House and Senate to join the Americans Abroad Caucus.

If you would like a model letter to send to Congress (either from yourself or from a company you're affiliated with), just contact me by email at andy@aaro.org.

The Great State of Minnesota

You never hear people refer to their states as "the mediocre state", "the below-par state" or "the patently worthless state". Every state always seems to be a "Great state", sometimes even with a capital S -- "the Great State". Maybe, in giving themselves that moniker, they don't even mean it to be relative to other US states. Maybe they're just oh so slightly greater than say, certain Mexican states, Swiss cantons or German Länder. I just don't know.

In any event, I've never been to Minnesota, but won't argue with its Great State nickname because it's turning out to be quite a Great State for overseas Americans. This week, we have met with three very supportive members of the Minnesota Congressional delegation and I'm starting to think this pattern might be more than a fluke. The offices of Senators Klobuchar and Franken and Congressman Ellison were particularly receptive to us and seem to understand our issues better than most of Capitol Hill. If you're from Minnesota, then please email me at andy@aaro.org because I would like to work with you to get even more of the Minnesota delegation on board.

The only other state delegation I've ever seen coalesce like this is the delegation of my home state of South Carolina. When I first got involved in OAW, Senator DeMint was our primary champion. Since then, my Congressman, Joe Wilson, has become extremely outspoken on our issues. Also, the office of Congressman Jim Clyburn, the third-ranking member of the House, has become a great source of advice and assistance for us. If we could turn Minnesota into our next South Carolina, then that only leaves 48 other Great States left for us to win over.

WACA Thursday

My primary focus has changed from one OAW to another. Before last year, I was either working as a generalist, working on all of our issues simultaneously, or focusing on the representation issue, i.e., trying to create and then build up the Americans Abroad Caucus. But last year and this year, I have been specifically working on the tax team, focusing on drumming up support for the Working American Competitiveness Act (aka WACA or HR 1798).

Yesterday was a productive day for WACA. I had three meetings in which I met with Congressmen themselves instead of their staffers, which is relatively rare for us and is greatly appreciated when it happens. The staff meetings are of course great as well, but when you have direct access to a member of Congress, you can make your case directly, instead of having it filtered through someone who may not be quite as passionate and persuasive about it as we hopefully are.

I had seven meetings yesterday, but the three with actual members of Congress were the best. All three of them were interested in WACA and we hope that they will soon agree to co-sponsor it once their staffers vet the details. As mentioned before, there are currently only two names on that bill -- Representatives Meeks and Paul. These three others would be great additions to that short list, for several reasons. I hesitate to mention who they are because I don't want to count my chickens before they hatch, but they are bipartisan and strategically important members of Congress. I will need to follow up over the coming weeks with these Members (as well as the other Members and staff I have met with this week) and try to turn that interest into actual sponsorship. We will need to have as many overseas Americans as possible send some letters. More on that later.

Political action

One issue on many people’s lips yesterday, among the overseas Americans I am working with and some of our friends and partners, was an idea that I have been discussing with many people for a long time, of creating a political action committee. The PAC idea is essentially this: among our issues, we have one issue – tax – that is worth several billion dollars to us, so we, as a community of roughly 6 million people, should be able to raise funds to spend on our political advocacy work in Washington, in addition to the relatively small sums that AARO, ACA, FAWCO and others currently spend (most of the AARO volunteers’ expenses, for example, have long been paid by us individually, not by the organization).


With a PAC, we would be able to regularly get advice from a professional lobbyist, contribute to campaigns of candidates we would like to help get into office or help keep in office, and do other things to get the word out on our issues. That would not just apply to tax -- I only mention tax above because it is a specifically financial issue, but of course many people would be equally motivated to contribute to a PAC to support us on voting, banking and other issues. A PAC is the next logical step if we want to take our political advocacy up a notch and have more of an impact on Capitol Hill.


The key stumbling block, however, is fundraising. We know there’s a need for this and there should be more than adequate funding, but no one knows exactly how to reach out to 6 million people and convince them to help us help them. Each person could contribute a maximum of $5,000 a year (which in many cases is a lot less than what they're spending on unjustified US taxes). Of course, many people would contribute at much lower levels than that and if enough of them did so, it could make a big difference for us on the Hill. If you have advice on how to reach out to potential donors and encourage them to contribute, then that will help us move forward on this idea. Just email any ideas to me at andy@aaro.org. We need your help!

TGIW

Now that I live in Saudi Arabia, having moved from Paris to Riyadh a year ago, I am on a different work week and have gotten used to the idea of Wednesday being my new Friday. So although we were only half-way through OAW 2010, yesterday felt like the culmination of our week. Yesterday evening, Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Joe Wilson (R-SC) – who represents my hometown, Hilton Head Island, SC – hosted an OAW reception at the Capitol Visitors’ Center, which was sponsored by one of our supporters, Clements International, an insurance company that provides services to overseas Americans.

At the reception, Representatives Maloney and Wilson spoke very eloquently about the needs of overseas Americans and how they want to assist us with our issues. Also in attendance were Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ), representatives of various other organizations we work with (FVAP, EAC, MECACC, etc.), and staff from many congressional offices.

First casualty

On Day 2 of Overseas Americans Week, we had some very productive meetings on the tax issue.

For those of you not familiar with the issue, here is a brief summary: Overseas Americans are subject to double taxation by the countries they live in and the United States. No other industrialized nation does this. A French, English, Japanese or other businessperson who leaves home to work abroad is taxed locally, but not by his or her country of origin. This not only creates an undue burden on people who want to work overseas, but it also puts American businesses at a disadvantage compared to their trade competitors. So it is bad for us and bad for export industries that should be generating new jobs back home. For details, see www.overseasamericansweek.com.

Fortunately, a bill has been introduced that would largely solve this problem. Congressman Gregory Meeks (D-NY) has introduced the Working American Competitiveness Act (HR 1798) to remove the cap from the foreign earned income exclusion provided by Section 911 of the Tax Code. He has one co-sponsor on the legislation, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). One of our goals is to find other co-sponsors for that legislation, particularly among members of the Ways & Means committee, which would need to approve the legislation before it could be considered by the full House. We met with several such offices today and, while we received no specific commitment of co-sponsorship, we feel that we have made inroads that may turn into support soon. One staffer in particular remembered us from last year’s visit, remembered our arguments on the tax issue and seemed much more able to help us this year than a year ago.

We were also able to meet with Congressman Jim Clyburn (D-SC), thanks to my friend Lindy Birch Kelly, who works in his office. Congressman Clyburn is the Majority Whip, one of the most powerful leadership positions in Congress. By stopping by the Majority Whip’s office each year, we are guaranteed to receive invaluable advice on our issues, as we did this year.

One funny thing happened on Tuesday. Following a meeting in the Hart Senate Office Building, two other OAW delegates and I were heading for the elevator, each loaded down with our laptops, position papers, and books. As we struggled with our materials, we saw a man walking towards us who very obviously was a Senator. If the hair, suit, and purposeful walk weren’t clear enough signs, then his “Good afternoon. How are you today?” and wide smile made it obvious. As he passed us, one of the women I was with (whose identity will be withheld, for her own protection) accidentally bumped into him, throwing him to the ground. We apologized profusely as he awkwardly got up, smiled and hobbled back to his office. So if you see anything on the news about a Senator suffering an unexplained broken leg, then please give me a heads-up: he’s the first casaulty of OAW 2010.