Super Congress to the Rescue

Do we always have to watch a bunch of neurotic bullies find ways to re-create the public space in their own image, and in particular, in the interests of the wealthy? And do we always have to play the role of a bunch of enablers?  Will this relationship never tire? How many ways can we play this out?

When I heard that the democrat and republican leaders were seriously considering setting up a Super Congress of 12 members (6 from each party) to decide policy issues, in particular, the debt ceiling woes, I was a bit stunned. It seemed so anti-American I had to find out why the idea of a Super Congress was even a consideration. I didn't remember voting on turning the country over to 12 people.

Why a Super Congress?

First, the rationale  for the establishment of a Super Congress is to break the impasse current lawmakers find themselves in finding a solution to the debt ceiling. At least in the public theater space it has created for itself. I can't find the logic in a Super Congress as the solution unless--I just can't find any justification for it.  But with so few options for addressing the debt ceiling on the table, why wouldn't Congress reach an impasse? There are just so many way to rearrange the paltry options it is considering. Meanwhile, the more serious problem is either overlooked, denied or derailed. What is that more serious problem? The problem appears to be in the number of options not in the $$$$ currently associated with social security, medicare and mediCal (Medicaid outside California).

Second, a Super Congress narrows the conversation and keeps out contrary opinions on decreasing entitlements.  More than twelve is a crowd, you know, whether it's a supreme court or a last supper. Twelve then is a good number. It's a number already associated with a higher authority in a lot of people's minds. It feels familiar. It must be right! Twelve works.

The Cloak of the Super Congress and Who it Rescues 

 Who needs all those members of Congress who are accountable to constituents who don't like the paltry options?  Who needs those annoying constituents who want to keep the three entitlements intact and not connected to raising the debt ceiling? Members of Congress need to be rescued from such constituents. A Super Congress can shield all those members who might face pesty or angry voters.  With only the 12 legislators accountable to their constituents, a Super Congress will let the vast majority of current members off the hook. They can go home and get some sleep, or play golf, or go on vacation.  They can say, I wouldn't have voted that way. No sir. Not me.

But just what cloak of rescue does the Super Congress wear?

A little drama: The cloak of fear. If this thing isn't resolved by August 2--we all go down.

 So far Congress, the administration, The Treasury, Wall Street, and even the rating agencies have tried almost every scare tactic to gain control of public sentiment on the issue. They have worked very hard to convince us all that maintaining these entitlements is so dangerous it could lead to the collapse of our economy--once again. Or is that not raising the debt ceiling that can lead to collapse with the only way out the dismantling of entitlements? Face it, these official groups are frustrated. Fear hasn't worked so far to dismantle what the wealthy want dismantled. They expected us to agree, to consider the loss of entitlement a shared sacrifice, to say, yes, yes, of course, it's the only way. We must wean ourselves off of social security, medicare and mediCal while we still can before disaster strikes! Besides, with the current goal  to re-create America in the image of the wealthy, in goals, morals, ethics, economics, religions, fashion, and laws, clinging to entitlements makes no sense. The wealthy have no need for entitlements. As emulators of the wealthy, nor should we.

But we hate to give them up. We've already invested our hard-earned money in them. We're concerned about an uncertain future. Maybe if the wealthy provided us with some kind of Retirement Camps or some soft or innocuous way to die when we get sick. In exchange, we can promise to not cost too much. If they can make these promises, I'm sure we'd give up our entitlements for them.

 Meanwhile, the wealthy will not let us down. They too are thinking up ways to help convince us. More fear to convince us might work. But more fear walks a delicate line. Too much fear or the "wrong" kind of casualties can backfire. Hurt profits. Cause a revolt.  Cost votes. No, the wealthy still trust us. We rarely stir. They are convinced we will give up our entitlements willingly. It's only a matter of time. The deadline helps. Oh my gosh, August 2 is almost here. Thank god the Super Congress promises to rescue us all.

 Of course there might be one glitch. By silencing the vast majority of members of Congress, the Super Congress  of 12 silences the larger than large voice of the people. Some people could get suspicious.  Cause trouble. Create doubt. They could say it sounds like the old Soviet Union or Communist China or old Fascist Italy, or Egypt or Iran, or some other totalitarian regime. No, they have to convince us that it's for our own good, that the way things are set up is just plain outdated. As George Bush said, America would be a lot easier to run as a dictatorship.

The first thing we have been told by the  people who thought up the idea of a Super Congress is that a Super Congress is perfectly legal because nowhere in the Constitution does it say you cannot have a Super Congress. On that thought, the Constitution fails to say you can't create a Citizen's Congress to overrule a Super Congress. Hmmm. Now there's a novel idea. We haven't tried that one yet.

Anyway, there's my first off the top of my head thoughts on this issue.