First, the theatrics that went along with the committee thrown together to trim a couple trillion bucks from the budget. I thought the entire thing was a circus from the beginning. My first question, and in some ways my only question, is this: With 535 voting members representing the country’s citizenry in Congress, I wonder what’s behind selecting a dozen of them to tackle the task of solving the nation’s fiscal ills. I have two guesses. The first is that the Republicans really do want to increase taxes, but they don’t want it on their record, so being able to blame it on a committee come election day sure would be handy. The second is that everyone in Washington has acknowledged on some level that the money situation – and therefore the country – has slithered beyond the point of no return. Rather than say this out loud, having a committee to personify the dysfunction is yet another way to distract voters from the truth, which we are evidently incapable and unwilling to confront.
Which was my first encounter last week with the word compromise. Millions of us were apparently turned on by candidates whose main campaign message was that they would not compromise when it came to taxes. And based on last week’s roaring about the failure of the so-called super committee to accomplish anything, millions of us are incapable of making the simplest of connections. One evening my mouth just sort of hung open as I watched one national newscast and listened to some big shot representing the retail industry claim that he’d been blindsided by this travesty. And the rancor out on the Internets was even more appalling, I thought: Throw them out of office! What a bunch of losers! Congress is dysfunctional! As long as I’m throwing the term “millions” around, here’s a prediction: The members of the super committee will indeed be thrown out of office a year from now, and they’ll be replaced by candidates whose talking points cater to an even more simple-minded crowd of millions of voters who want to address problems that have been in the works for at least a century with an answer as simple and easy as apple pie. We want solutions, they’ll say, not compromises.
Closer to home, Oregon’s governor announced he’s putting a moratorium on all executions for the duration of his term. During his first go-round as governor, there was at least one execution carried out that left him, he says, with more questions than conclusions. To avoid finding himself – and the state – in that situation again, he declared himself unwilling to compromise. And in my own way, in spite of my tirade against the use of that word in the context of politics, I applauded.
