I don't think people are as alarmed as they should be about the Super Congress.

[woo me with science]

Link to post by DeSwiss about the Super Congress: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=4933385


The Super Congress is included in BOTH debt reduction packages being considered now. Any compromise reached will almost surely include it.

Every time I have seen concerns about the Super Congress posted here, I see replies arguing that using committees to fast-track legislation is routine in Congress and not to get excited about it. Then the threads sink.

But IMO, to suggest that because committees have been used before for other types of legislation makes it a routine matter to put a Super Congress in place for DEBT reduction(!) is jaw-droppingly naive. Look at the trauma this country has been through just in the past two weeks, with Medicare and Social Security on the table.

If you put a Super Congress (Read: twelve of the most powerful representatives of the moneyed interests in Congress - you can bet your life Sanders or Frankin will not be on this panel...) in charge of cutting the debt, you are inviting more draconian cuts than we can even imagine with the system we have now. No, it is NOT business as usual to allow a committee to fast-track and shove through legislation targeting the debt and entitlements. The use of this committee process will allow pushing through of legislation that would not be passable in the regular representative process...and you want to hand over DEBT REDUCTION...in this political climate?!

Wake up and look at who we are dealing with. We are already fighting like hell to protect core programs that should never, ever have been on the table in the first place. To suggest that handing debt reduction over to a Super Congress would be just like using a committee for any other purpose, at this time and in this political climate, is beyond all logic and comprehension.

I will say it again: people need to wake up and realize who we are dealing with. The Republicans are out to bring the country down, but too many Democrats are also disturbingly prepared to soak the poor for the benefit of the wealthy (did you see madfloridian's post about Hamiltonian Democrats? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph... ).

The situation of our poor and elderly is so precarious, and the voices defending them so few and far between, that to remove debt reduction from the ENTIRE Congress and put it in the hands of a moneyed few will be signing a death warrant for these programs. Either plan will give us a Super Congress at this point. The President is looking for a "compromise," which will likely mean cuts in entitlements PLUS the Super Congress to ensure that future cuts are easier to push through.

We have entered a very dark age for protection of the most vulnerable among us.

[OHdem10]

1. People need to wake up and recognize what we are dealing with.

Oversimplified of course. Historically every commission
I have observed--end up with Conservative Solutions.

Only this commission could bring in a RW Bill and Congress
would be forced to either accept or reject it. No ammendments
no nothing.

Our pitiful little critters would then be able to tell us.
"The Commission" made me do it.

This is just a way to cover their behinds up on the Hill and
never be accountable to their constituents.

[woo me with science]

It is alarming as hell.

And the fact that it is in BOTH bills is highly disturbing. They WANT this.

They have a plan. We have been shock-doctrined, and they are not only pushing entitlement cuts through, they are setting up a structure that will make it even easier to CONTINUE transferring wealth from the poor and middle classes to the rich.

I think you are exactly right. it gives them a way to please the banks and corporations and provides them cover for doing it.

And it goes a long way toward silencing and shutting out the few advocates we have left in Congress for the rest of us.

[IDemo]

2. It resembles another body of government that I can think of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Central_Committee_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union

[woo me with science]

5. Nobody is asking the question, "Why do they want this so much?"

They want it because the normal legislative process makes it too messy, difficult, and politically awkward to transfer money from the poor to the wealthy. Witness the trauma of the past few weeks.

This will significantly streamline the process. .

The committee will include six Democrats and six Republicans. Who will be seated at the table with the six chosen Republicans? Third Way Democrats...the ones with the moneyed interests and connections, of course. They are the reason entitlements are even on the table in the first place, and this will make it significantly easier for them to push through legislation without the bother of having to deal with the WHOLE Congress that represents the REST of the United States, including the few principled souls left still fighting for the 95 percent.

Congress was set up to make sure the entire country is represented in major legislative decisions. When you shift power on something as important as this to a select, moneyed few, representative government dies.

[Blue Meany]

3. More centralized power in the most powerful country on earth:

What could go wrong?

[emulatorloo]

4. I'm pretty damned alarmed by it. It is dangerous and horrible.

[RainDog]

6. I agree. this smacks of corporate ownership

it's so totally over-the-top to even hear this proposed - we're already too far away from any sort of direct democracy.

republicans want to have overlord power. like darth cheney.

[Davis_X_Machina]

7. Neither new, nor particularly uncommon, nor unconstititional..

...per Sarah Binder at The Monkey Cage. But the concept of delegating authority to a committee, commission, or the executive branch—and then guaranteeing chamber votes on the resulting proposals or decisions—has ample precedent. Expedited procedures have been a critical tool for decades when legislators have sought ways to credibly commit to a measure that results from delegated authority. (Steve Smith and I date these statutory limits on debate at least back to 1939).