Principles vs. Compromise

Today I wrote about Boulder City finding the right balance in negotiations with a developer. (Read here)

But it hints at a larger issue in politics and that is principles vs. compromise. We all want principled politicians, and talk of the need for people to stick to their principles. To ensure they do we often ask them to sign pledges. One, may be a pledge that they won’t raise taxes or a pledge to protect social security. But we also say politicians need to be able to compromise. Be willing to give a little. These two ideals often seem to conflict and people often use them to their own benefit.  They say that a politician has no principles when they compromise something they would not, and get upset the politician won’t compromise when it would better align with their views.

Truth is, I respect someone who will not compromise on core principles but find that most political issues do not fall under core principles, no matter how much we want them to. Taxes, social programs, and zoning laws are all important policies that can be guided by our principles but the specifics of the policy is not a core principle that cannot be compromised.

One of the Boulder City Council Candadites was asked to sign a pledge and replied that the only pledge he would agree to was the pledge of allegiance to our flag. That was Councilman Harhay and that position was wise, not necessarily politically wise but simply incredibly sage.  My respect for Councilman Harhay has grown and his decision to compromise that I wrote about this week led to many online critics but I think he and others on our council are successfully finding that they can indeed both compromise and stay true to their principles.

Taxes?

This week in my article I tackle my views on  taxes and the evil 1%. (Read it here)

But in reality this is more focused on us as individuals than it is on congress. I generally feel what we do is far more important than what congress does. So, what are my views on what congress should do?

I am very concerned with deficit spending and our debt. Everyone I talk to is. And every person, and for that matter, every president has a solution. The solution everyone always has is to do exactly what their side of the isle wants. What do I mean? When a Republican wins election he says he will get rid of deficits by slashing domestic spending, slashing it so much that he will be able to lower taxes, increase military spending and still eliminate the deficit. Democrats will get rid of the deficit by raising taxes on the rich and cutting military spending. They will raise taxes so much that they will have more money for increased domestic spending and still be rid of the deficit.

These are always their campaign promises, yet what really happens. Without a willingness to compromise, Republicans can somehow find the political fortitude to cut taxes, but somehow lack the political capital to meaningfully cut spending. So, the debt only goes up. Democrats seem to muster the political strength to increase domestic programs and spending, but somehow can't seem to actually effectively raise taxes. So, the debt also goes up. So what do we get? More and more deficits, more and more debt. (This is aptly shown in one of my favorite Studio C skits) They all say the deficit is a huge issue and cry foul when the other party wants to raise it, but somehow become blind to it when their own party wants to raise it. The same democrats who will moan that the deficit will increase under current GOP tax cuts didn't seem too worried when the ARRA was being passed, knowing full well it would raise our deficit. Similarly many Republicans who said it was immoral to even consider ARRA given what it would do to the deficit, now somehow feel that a tax plan that massively increases deficits is okay.

I would like to see a congress and president finally embrace the fact that this issue is so important that they have to be willing to do things unpopular with their party in order to compromise and move the needle. That means Republicans willing to raise taxes, and cut military spending and Democrats willing to cut domestic spending. Could such heretics of their parties sacred cows get elected? Probably not. And that is why we will continue to get each president promise a way out of deficit spending only to see it go on.

(In my lifetime the only time we got close to truly having true surplus was in 2000 when the debt was raised by a meager 17 Billion dollars, very minor compared to most other years. How was this accomplished. Clinton both raised taxes, had a booming economy, cut military spending and yes, cut domestic spending. He, a democrat, worked with a republican congress to actually cut a domestic program. But did any President since follow suite, work with the other side and really take a hit to find a decent compromise? No, push only what their side wants and the debt has done nothing but climb.)

Paralegal to Prostitute

Jennifer and Myself in Denver

Jennifer was only 12 years old when she first found herself living on the streets. Mom demanded she attend school and she just wanted to goof off. "Most nights, I would find someone’s couch to crash on," she remembers. By 13, she was into drugs and in and out of juvenile detention. At 19, she was pregnant, and she gave birth prematurely to a boy who came out heavily addicted to alcohol and drugs. Not surprisingly, the state took the child. But finding foster care for such a high needs infant can be difficult (see my post on Doug Broadbent).

The state was lucky. A nurse with all the right background and knowledge had recently decided to foster. This would be her first and last foster child because after 6 months they were sick of being foster parents and simply wanted to be parents. The couple approached Jennifer and asked that she give up any rights to the child to allow them to adopt. While it was hard, she agreed, "They were going to give him a much better chance at life than I was prepared to give."

Since the birth, her personal life had not improved. Drugs still ruled her every action, and shortly after the adoption was finalized she again found herself in jail. However jail proved exactly what she needed. She went straight from jail to a rehabilitation facility. She was released at age 22 and that is when she began to get her life back. After acquiring her GED, she entered school at University of Colorado Denver to work on a Political Science degree. She married, got a job as a waitress, and most importantly, stayed sober. As she neared graduation she began to feel maybe Political Science was a mistake and took side classes to get a certificate as a paralegal. As she neared graduation she began an internship in her new field.

Then it happened. It had been 7 years of sobriety, but avoiding drugs doesn't guarantee an easy life. Her marriage was hurting and it ended in an ugly divorce. "After the divorce, I felt like a failure and just lost all my motivation." She lost her internship, dropped out of school and returned to drugs, streets and crime. That was five years ago.

I saw her near a Wal-Mart holding a sign that said, “Trying to pick myself up by going lower." When asked to explain, she said that she was trying to get a job as a sign flipper which many considered low, but any job would be higher for her. She said she was guilty of anything to get the drugs, but had finally decided that stealing and prostitution weren't worth it and that she had stopped those. She recounted how even begging was a step up from those.

As I thought of the lessons I learned from Jennifer, I thought of Oswaldo, another person dragged into a life of addiction at a young age. I also thought of how hard it would be to give up your only son. Even though the state had taken the child, if she hadn’t given up rights, he could be bouncing around in our legal system from foster home to foster home to this day. She did exactly what someone who loves their child should do, give him the best chance for happiness in a home with a loving father and mother. She said it better than I could: "I am proud of myself for giving him up, no matter how hard it was, and I'm grateful for the great parents who are raising him."

But the other thing I can't get out of my mind is the night 5 years ago when she felt so empty. When the failure of her marriage made her feel a failure at life to the point that she was ready to reenter the hell of addiction she had left seven years before. Why couldn't someone have been there to take her to dinner that night? To help her see how far she had come and how much she had to keep fighting for? If she had not slipped back into the darkness of her past that night, where might she be today?

Who around us is struggling today? Who is about to fall? Those in the depths of despair won't usually call out for help. Rather, we need to be in touch with their needs and call them up, seek them out, and rescue them before they surrender to whatever hell is closing in.

I wasn't there for Jennifer that day, but who can I be there for today?

If you liked this check out my last Homeless post: Devastating Debt

Improving Historic Preservation

This week I write about how Boulder City could work together to improve historic preservation. (Read Here).

I try to layout things I would want to see if I were going to vote on a measure that increases the strength of our historic preservation laws. But truth is, what I want to see is not nearly as important as what the council wants to see, and is willing to vote for.

It is clear that Councilman McManus is the easy vote on this. He has brought up items in the past that would strengthen historical preservation. The problem is, it was always seen as too limiting to property rights and was voted down.

So the focus needs to be on the other four votes, if historic preservation change is going to occur. In the most recent election Councilman Harhay made it very clear that he believes in, and would protect property rights. With that said, I believe, all on the council believe in, and see the value in historic preservation. What is needed is to find language that strikes the proper balance between preservation and property rights. A great place to start is by conversing with Councilwoman Leavitt, Councilman Schuman and Harhay, as well as the Mayor to find a balance they could support. Then a good balance could be found and something might pass. This will take compromise, work and working with those we don’t always agree with.

However, if those trying to get this to pass, simply move forward with crafting the language, and constantly paint the council as outsiders working against them, with language such as, “We got to show them they must vote for this or ruin their political careers” or  “ We crafted something great but they and their crony’s are probably going to vote it down...recall.” Then we will have an, “us vs. them.” and it won’t pass.

I sure like the first option much more. And truthfully feel it has the best chance of success. What about you?