Congratulations Tammy Baldwin

Congratualtions to Tammy Baldwin.  She was sworn in to the U.S. Senate yesterday.  Although I do enjoy the formality of tradition in the ceremony, I rather would have liked to see a modified swearing in, where Vice President Biden asks "Do you swear to uphold the constitution of the United States, and to perform the duties of this office to utmost of your ability?" to which Tammy Baldwin could respond "You're Damn Right!"

Tammy has said that she didn't run in order to win, and that she wasn't focused on becoming the first openly gay Senator.  She does, of course, recognize the importance of this milestone, though.  In a report from WISN 12, Milwaukee she explained "If you're not in the room, the conversation is about you... If you're in the room, the conversation is with you, and that's transformative." 
 
This is one of the reasons I have supported Tammy since her 1992 run for State Assembly.  At the  time, I could only root for her from counties away.  I remember watching election returns until late at night, frustrated because local stations focused on Milwaukee county, and the ticker on the bottom showed her race about every 20 minutes or so.  I actually didn't find out the result until the next morning, and I celebrated when I learned of her victory.

Back then, I had some notion of who Harvey Milk was.  I've read up since then.  Harvey understood, perhaps inspired, what Baldwin says about the conversation.  Allies are important, especially in bridging the gap between lgbt people and those "want nothing to do" with us.  But it's just as important that we have "one of us" taking part in the conversation. 

A Real Cliffhanger

I'm No Expert

I'll admit that I'm still not entirely clear on how our economy works.  In the microcosm of my own life, I do know that spending more than I make is stupid, and that borrowing to meet spending only leads to greater debt and struggle in the future.  My options are to try to make more, or to spend less.  Making more would mean asking for a raise or more hours. I could take on an additional job, seek a higher paying job, or take on another one.  One option I don't have, and the reason I feel politicians just don't relate to real people, is the authority to simply tell my bosses they're going to pay me more, or to get together with my coworkers to "vote" ourselves a higher paycheck.

Spending less is a challenge, but lately, it's been the easier of the two.  I must be doing something right in that arena.  A friend recently mentioned a conversation they had with my dad.  They were visiting and he asked if I was still being too cheap to turn the heat on.  If Dad's calling me "cheap" then I can only respond that it's because I'm taking the lessons he taught me.  Maybe Dad and I should both go to Washington.

Well, the fight between the two strategies is being fought out by our leaders.  Last night (January 1, 2012) a temporary deal was passed.  After trying to sort through the details, I realized why Dad and I aren't in Washington.  It's kind of mind boggling, which also explains a thing or two about politicians.

In all of this, it seems like the majority of the deal favors the increased income strategy  the Democratic party and President Obama wanted.  It's a win, but a temporary solution.

Media Messing It Up

As the media was covering the approach of the fiscal cliff (or more accurately, our approach to the fiscal cliff) I was reminded of an allegory I heard of the way hunters catch monkeys.  Food is placed in a hollowed out gourd with a small opening, and the gourd is tied to a tree.  The monkey is able to reach in and grab the food, but when grasping, the monkey's hand is too big to fit back out of the hole.  At this point, the hunter is able to simply walk up to the monkey, which is unwilling to let go of its prize, even in the face of immediate danger.

Here were two sides of the economic debate, both clinging fiercely to their prize ideals, and in this case, the prize was dragging them to a cliff.  It wasn't until they both went over that one realized the imminent doom and relaxed its grip.

Putting aside for a moment, the satisfying image of politicians as monkeys, I have to admit that I was surprised to hear that the deal passed with support from Republicans willing to compromise.  As you may know, there is a lot that I dislike about the Republican Party; its pandering to religious extremists topping the list.  But I grudgingly admit that I have several areas of agreement with the GOP. (There, I said it.  That doesn't mean I'm joining GOProud or Log Cabin.  Not even close)

Still, seeing the party that I considered the more stubborn making the move toward center gave me hope.  Surely now that at least one side was showing reason, the other would be pressured to do the same.  Then I saw this headline in the Huffington Post..

January 1st, 2013, Fiscal Cliff Deal Passed By Congress After Republicans Cave.  

So, after months of both sides accusing the other guy of being unwilling to compromise, the side that does is labeled as having "caved" and being the loser.  That's exactly the mentality that prevented any kind of compromise for an entire year.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not planning a parade to praise Republicans as the heroes of the day.  But let's give them credit, they gave up something they wanted in order to prevent the immediate catastrophe.  Framing this action as a sign of weakness is going to make any future agreement that much more difficult.  And Democrats are are going to hesitate to relax their grip now, lest they be viewed as losers by their side.  (there are already those who accuse Obama of being weak on the deal)

Even though Democrats didn't get everything they wanted in the deal, I do think Republicans gave up more of their hopes to make the deal happen.  America will now wait to see if, when the time comes to work on a more permanent solution, Democrats are willing to do the same.  This will certainly be an expectation of Republican voters, and even many who voted Democrat, like myself.

Now, I've been accused of being a single issue voter, because gay rights were my primary reason for voting against Romney.  I won't go into the others on this post.  The label implies that I had no concern at all for the economy.  That's not really true.  The economy was factored in, and I did in fact give Romney a slight advantage on the economy, but at the cost of stomping civil rights into the dark ages.  As I said before, I didn't think either side that the one true answer.

So my comment to the party I did vote for is this.  Be ready to face the reality that compromise is going to mean cutting spending. period.  I'm not talking about reducing increases in spending, I mean cutting spending.   You probably could push through more tax increases, which would further divide the nation.  Or you can take a serious look at your budget and make the tough decisions every American in the real world is doing.  Agreeing to spending cuts is not losing, it's being reasonable.  It's your turn.