Senator Durbin,

I have lived in Illinois my entire life. I am almost always in agreement with your legislative viewpoints, and appreciate how accesible and responsive you are to your constituents. And so I ask you: Please raise my taxes.

I’m a freelancer. I make less than $20,000 a year. I work in the arts, with children, with colleges and universities, and receive most of my income as 1099. That means I feel the weight of my taxes directly – they aren’t split between myself and my employer. I have bills, rent, medical expenses. And yet, I want you to raise my taxes.

With all the talk of budget deficits, the worries about angering voters by even mentioning raising taxes, and obstinant insistance by the GOP to refuse to raise taxes, I want to make my voice heard, too. As an American, taxes are part of the responsibility I bear to pay for the government services I enjoy. When I fly to visit family in California, I want to know my planes are inspected by government officials, and airports protected by others. When I drink water, I want to know the tap water I enjoy in Chicago is held to the same basic standard as in Portland or New York. While I disagree with much of our current military policy, I am ready to help pay for the defense of the United States. Everyday I am aware of the countless ways in which government helps make my life easier and safer. And I want to help pay for it.

I’m ready to pay more, for a sane government hand in healthcare. I’m ready to pay more, for a substantial government hand in education. I’m ready to pay more for a government hand in highways, bridges, science research, space exploration, national security, and on and on and on.

Please, raise my taxes.
-Rebecca

The last few weeks have seen a rush of stories about Obama’s childhood nanny, a transgender woman named Evie. Evie was Obama’s nanny for two years, although she was presenting as male at the time. Beginning with the AP story on March 5, “Obama’s transgender ex-nanny outcast,” the story quickly made the rounds–from American news outlets to the UK, New Zealand, Turkey, and beyond. Here’s the start of the original AP story:

Exclusions. Covered expenses of the Plan shall not include … procedures, treatments, equipment, transplants, or implants, any of which are … for, or resulting from, a gender transformation operation. – 215 Illinois Compiled Statutes 105 – Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan Act

It’s unclear whether the State of Illinois has defined – through statute or the courts – what specifically “gender transformation operation” means. But it seems pretty safe to assume that the surgery I’m currently considering would fall under its purview. Surgery in which the “spongiform erectile tissue of the penis is removed, and the skin, with its nerves and vascular system (blood supply) still attached, is used to create a vestibule area and labia minora, which then are inverted into the neovaginal cavity created in the pelvic tissue.” That seems pretty gender transformative to me.

What’s interesting about the Illinois Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan Act (or the ICHIP Act) is what other injuries, procedures, and categories of coverage are excluded.  Gender transformation operations (item 14.iv on the list of exclusions) is lumped in with cosmetic surgery (item 1), anything which exceeds “reasonable or customary” cost (item 4), injury due to war (item 9) , services that are “not provided in accord with generally accepted standards of current medical practice” (item 14), contraceptives (item 19), weight loss programs (item 21), acupuncture (22). Interestingly enough, the act itself does not, as best as I could find, mention abortion or early termination of a pregnancy, but the ICHIP website stil says such services are excluded.

And then there’s my favorite exclusion. Item thirteen. “Blank.” The item isn’t actually blank, but the text reads open-parentheses-b-l-a-n-k-close-parentheses. Blank. I’m assuming there was an item thirteen, but it was removed by some later amendment I’ve been unable to find. Either that or the Illinois State Legislature was worried about the superstitious ramifications of having an exclusion number thirteen. But that seems unlikely, because there is a benefit item number thirteen (diagnostic x?rays and laboratory tests). The ways of government legislatures are opaque and confusing.

As far as I can tell, gender reassignment surgery (or gender transformation operation, or sex change, or whatever you want to call it) is the only accepted standard of medical practice (to use the ICHIP ACT language) explicitly excluded. Nowhere else did the Illinois Legislature say, “Doctors recommend this treatment. There are safe and reasonable guidelines for its use. It has been shown to be beneficial to patients. But there’s no way in hell we’re going to pay for it.”

Because the Illinois State Legislature is obviously the best-equipped body to decide medical coverage and treatment.

Fun fact: President Obama lives at the top of the dome

Lobbying. One week ago tomorrow, I was traipsing around Capitol Hill, speaking with the staff of Senators and Representatives. As the Degrees of Separation go, I’m now a mere one or two links to President Obama. Lobbying was an incredibly empowering experience, and also somewhat anticlimactic.

All the folks who were going to go lobbying met in the cafeteria of one of the House of Representatives office buildings. These buildings (two or three for House members, on one side of the Capitol, and two or three more on the other side) were basically unnavigable. (Though they had good signs, for the most part.) Capitol Hill, much to my surprise, isn’t so much a metaphor as an actual, physical, hill. So it’s possible to enter a building on the ground floor, go to the opposite end of a hallway, and find yourself underground (or above ground level.) “Helpful” signs, indicating which exit was at which corner of the building, were less helpful if you had no idea which street you wanted to end up near. And you’re surrounded by people in fancy suits, all of whom clearly know where they’re going. But I was with other folks for most of the morning, so felt pretty good and was able to get to appointments on time.

The starting cafeteria was large. Very large. With huge vats of coffee, and all those busy people running around doing presumably important things. The lobbyists met in a back section, where we all confirmed our meeting times and buddies. After having a surprisingly good omelet, I set off for my first meeting, with Rep. Reed from the NY 29th.

Rep. Reed is a first term Republican, and his staffer wasn’t sure on his position on the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. Likewise, I realize I’m not from New York. I specifically said I wasn’t a constituent of Reed’s, and was there to offer my support to Stephanie (the woman I was with) and, if it would be helpful, to share my story. The staffer seemed receptive to us, though, and found the National Center for Transgender Equality’s survey (we had Executive Summaries to hand out) helpful. Some statistics that have stuck with me: 90% of trans folks have experienced some sort of discrimination in the workplace, and 26% (including me!) have lost a job because they’re trans. 41% of trans folks have attempted suicide, versus 1.6% of the general population.

After Reed was Rep. Dingell, an 80+ year old politician who has represented Michigan’s 15th for over fifty-five years. He’s been an ENDA supporter, so his Chief of Staff was very nice and receptive.

The Halls of Power

I then schlepped across the Hill to the Senate offices to meet with someone from Senator Durbin‘s office. Durbin has been my Senator since 1996, so basically my entire political life. I like him a lot, and consistently agree with him on most things. His staffer reiterated his support of ENDA and said he might be interested in using my story of being fired as a way to help push the bill. (Durbin is apparently – though in a very different way from myself! – is a big fan of storytelling for change.) So that’d be pretty cool! I’m not holding my breath, but stranger things have happened.

After Durbin I went back across the Hill to meet with someone from Rep. Schakowsky‘s office. Along the way, I took some pictures of the Capitol and filmed the thank-you videos I owed my Kickstarter supporters. I also learned that you can’t use tripods on the grounds of the Capitol, which seems really stupid.

The meeting and Rep. Schakowsky’s office was similar to the one with Durbin and Dingell: met with staff, they talked about their support of ENDA, the meeting was soon-after over. Better than some of the folks in DC – I heard some legislator from Virginia refused to meet with their constituent – just nothing that makes for dramatic narrative.

Senator Kirk‘s office was about the same. Though I have to say: I didn’t vote for Kirk, I disagree with him on a lot of issues, but he supported ENDA while he was in the House and his staffer said he’d continue to do so in the Senate. So that’s pretty awesome. Likewise, he voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and his staffer said he might be willing to help push for more Republican support of ENDA. Kirk’s office was also amusing in that I had the most time to chat with staffers there, and hear about the hectic move from the House offices to the Senate, and how the transition has been going. Very humanizing of a politician I don’t see eye-to-eye with.

The Butt of Justice

And that was lobbying, honestly. It was tiring. It involved lots of walking. The food and the gift shops were surprisingly affordable and comprehensive. The other folks in DC lobbying were all awesome. I ran into some folks pushing for more diabetes research (I apparently look like someone who can give directions, and fortunately did actually have a map) who gave me a “right on!” when I said I was lobbying for ENDA.

But I’d say the experience of lobbying itself, for me, took second fiddle to the community building and artistic material gathering I was able to do while in DC. Those experiences – the people, the relationships, the horrifying statistics I mentioned above – will stick with me for a lot longer than the specific act of sitting down with five generic legislative staffers.

Thanks to everyone who helped get me there, and please let me know if you have any questions about my experience. This is sort of the general overview of the Lobby Day, so I know I didn’t go into as much detail as I might have.

At the heart of all of these arguments is an attempt to interpret what the Founding Fathers meant. What the Constitution “really” means today. Except that discussion – while academically interesting - is side-stepping the actual issue which should be under discussion: What do we want the Constitution to mean?

Don’t take that question to mean I’m in favor of so-called judicial activism. Rather, I think if certain things are so clearly ambiguous in the Constitution, we should change the friggin’ document!

Amending the Constitution isn’t easy. It really isn’t supposed to be. Such fundamental changes are supposed to require overwhelming support from the states. But which is a more productive discussion: “The Second Amendment means this”, OR “American policy on gun control – and the right to bear arms – should be this”?

I’m not one to shy away from a good debate about semantics, but when discussing Federal policy – about privacy, healthcare, abortion, gun control, free speech, growing marijuana, and a host of other things – I don’t want to discuss what the Framers thought 230 years ago. I want to discuss what the reality is now. And if the Constitution doesn’t meet that reality, then lets damn well change the Constitution!

I realize this is a lofty goal, one I probably own’t see in my lifetime. The last successful amendment was ratified in 1992, preventing congressional pay increases from taking place until the next session (ooh, how important), while the last amendment of substance, in 1972, lowered the voting age to 18. But since then, there seems to be (as someone who wasn’t alive then and is speaking purely from the history books) an increase in the divisiveness in American politics. Can you really imagine Republicans and Democrats sitting down to discuss whether or not people should be able to bear arms (and, just as importantly, why) rather than bickering about the semantics of what “a well regulated militia” means? Likewise for all these other issues.

I think the healthcare debate is a particularly egregious example. Does the commerce clause allow for the US government to require people to buy healthcare? Honestly? I think it probably does not. To me, the argument that requiring people to buy healthcare falls under the definition of “regulating commerce” seems ridiculous. At the same time, I’m very much in favor of a single-payer system to provide national healthcare. But I don’t think we should look for loopholes in the Constitution to get there. I think we should aim for an amendment along the lines of the one introduced by Jesse Jackson Jr:

SECTION 1. All persons shall enjoy the right to health care of equal high quality.

SECTION 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation.

That still leaves a lot of room for debate on what the “appropriate legislation” should look like. Reasonable, legitimate debates about single payer systems versus subsidies and removing clauses about preexisting conditions (or other ideas I probably haven’t even heard of). As I said before, I’d be rooting for a single payer system. But we wouldn’t have to debate about whether or not the US Government should be dealing with health care.

The framers of the Constitution made it intentionally difficult to get things done. The goal was for informed, cautious debate, with the goal of finding consensus. Something I can’t remember hearing about ever in my lifetime. (At least, not about any issue of substance.)

It makes me think of games of Risk I’ve played with friends. (Or Monopoly. Or Settlers of Catan. Or…well, come to think of it, my friends like to argue about game rules…) There will be some minor disagreement about the rules, but instead of taking a step back and discussing what would make the most sense – and using that new house rule – we’ll argue about what the game designers meant. Which, when you’re trying to conquer the world, isn’t as fun of a discussion as rolling the dice and seeing if your armies are strong enough to capture Kamtchatka.

Each year, transgender people, our families, friends and allies join us in Washington, DC, as we go to our members of Congress to share vital information with them about transgender people and our families. We will also have great opportunities to talk with policy makers in the Administration whose work directly impacts our lives. Please join us as we make strides to bring transgender equality to our nation’s capital.

Three things:

1. If you can, GO!
2. Anyone in the DC area willing to put me up if I’m able to go?
3. Anyone have some money or frequent flyer miles to help me get there?

I looked into Amtrak which is (shockingly!) the cheapest option – about $170 round trip versus $240 for plane tickets, and $270(!!) for a bus.

So…who is in?

Krystal Ball

Krystal Ball is a 28 year old Democrat running for Congress in Virginia. (Here is her campaign website.) She has a silly name and, recently, pictures of her at a party six or seven years ago joking around, sucking on a dildo.

She then released the best statement, ever:

I don’t believe these pictures were posted with a desire to just embarrass me; they wanted me to feel like a whore. They wanted me to collapse in a ball of embarrassment and to hang my head in shame. After all, when you are a woman named Krystal Ball, 28 years old, running for Congress, well, you get the picture. Stripper. Porn star. I’ve heard them all.

The full statement is here, and details Ball’s rise to politics, jokes about her name, talks about her desire to see more women in the political arena, and her refusal to let these pictures get the best of her.

I just donated $10, and hope she kicks her opponent’s ass.

I’d imagine you’re aware of the usual response to that, but I think it’s important enough that it bears repeating.

Whether or not being gay is a preference/choice or biologically determined is is irrelevant to the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Regardless of the cause of homosexuality, the government should not be in the business of regulating the behavior of consenting adults or discriminating based on said behavior.

In general, the argument for marriage only being valid for a man and a woman revolves around child-rearing. If that’s the case, it’s odd that so many of the legal and financial rights/privileges granted by marriage do not directly relate to child reading and, indeed, apply regardless of whether or not the married couple has children, ever plans to have children, or even can have children. For example, my mom is now past child-bearing age. Does that mean she shouldn’t be allowed to get (re)married?

So please don’t act like qualifying homosexuality as a preference and talking about the rights of gay men and women to marry people of the opposite sex as if it takes the wind out of the sails of gay marriage proponents. It doesn’t.

-R

PS – As a side note, part of a well-functioning government’s role is to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority [wikipedia.org]. So while you’re right, a minority population can’t count on the state’s protection, it’s not unreasonable to expect such protection in the (theoretical) ‘ideal’ state.

Yeeaaaup….
-R