Czarism On Steroids: The Right Resorts to Pushing Dictatorship to Get Its Social Security Cuts

by: David Sirota

Mon Feb 23, 2009 at 21:11


A few weeks ago, I wrote an article for the San Francisco Chronicle about the disturbing rise of czarism during this economic crisis - that is, the rise of people pushing to trample basic democracy in the name of dealing with the ongoing economic emergency. Little did I know that once the scent of Social Security cuts wafted into the air in Washington, czarism would be replaced by a full-fledged push for something that goes way beyond czarism or authoritarian capitalism, and approaches a new form of dictatorship.
David Sirota :: Czarism On Steroids: The Right Resorts to Pushing Dictatorship to Get Its Social Security Cuts
If you hadn't seen, Blue Dog Democrats claiming they care about the deficit - ie. the same Democrats who voted for the deficit exploding Iraq War and Bush tax cuts and corporate welfare bills and bloated defense budgets - are pushing the Obama administration to endorse legislation creating a commission that would propose cuts to Social Security. If that's not bad enough, the Wall Street Journal reports that that commission's edicts wouldn't be subject to any congressional debate. It would simply "present plans to Congress for an up-or-down vote" (h/t FDL).

At today's "entitlements summit" at the White House, this "we must kill democracy to save the nation" ideology reared its ugly head in the form of George W. Bush appointee David Walker's coded comments to President Obama:

WALKER: You mentioned in January about the need to achieve a Grand Bargain involving budget process, social security, taxes, health care reform. You're 110% right to do that. Question is, how do we do it? Candidly, I think it takes an extraordinary process that engages the American people, provides for fast track consideration and with your leadership that can happen. But that's what it's going to take.

That term - "fast track" - is the very same term used to describe the process by which trade deals are brought to Congress only for an up or down vote with no democratic debate, no amendments, nothing.

Why is democracy such a threat to those who want to slash Social Security or pass corporate-written trade deals? Because those right-wing ideologues know that if any mildly democratic institution even vaguely accountable to the public is allowed to weigh in on those proposals, those proposals will be seriously amended to reflect the will of the people who, for instance, don't like the idea of Social Security cuts or more NAFTAs. Put another way, they know that the public intensely hates their ideas, and that thus, the only way to get their ideas enacted into law in the United States is to crush democracy before it is allowed to interfere.

What's funny, of course, is that democracy and checks and balances were set up specifically to prevent the kind of thing that the Blue Dog Democrats are now trying to impose on the country. The Founding Fathers set up the legislative process - with its debates and amendments and deliberations - so as to prevent a tiny minority of elites from enacting policies that the broad majority of the public opposes. They didn't want a government like there was in Britain - a dictatorship where whatever the king wanted was the law, regardless of whether it had popular support.

Now, in order to destroy the most popular program in history, America is seeing the revival of the Royalists - the people who are effectively insisting that their will should be imposed on the rest of us, regardless of what the rest of us want, regardless of whether the rest of us even get a say.


Tags: (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
why do those blue dogs call themselves Democrats (4.00 / 2)
when they are really authoritarian right wingers .. do they just think they get more attention, leverage by calling themselves Democrats. Why does the rest of the party indulge those sham Democrats, slash and burn Gingrichistas disguised as lefties.

Thanks for posting this. (4.00 / 2)
It's very bad news, and I hope that a lot of readers work the Congressional phone-lines before evisceration of Social Security and Medicare is a done deal.

so, what, exactly, is he proposing? (0.00 / 0)
do we have some basis for thinking he is actually talking about reforming the rules of congressional procedure?  

Fast tracking and commissions (4.00 / 6)
Are both about short circuiting the democratic process by severely constraining debate and decision making.

Commissions take the research and hearing process out of public view and limit public input. The agenda is set in private, "hearings" are preordained to reach a certain conclusion and input is limited to selected elites only--ie, the ones they invite to provide input. It's like a show trial in this sense. Then they draft legislation, without public input and submit it to congress.

Fast tracking limits or eliminates debate. That's the way congress has been doing trade policy for over a decade. Less debate means less public exposure, which means that by the time anyone sees the details it's already done. No hearings, no debate. No democracy and no one in congress has to go on the record as being in favor of this stuff. That's why so many Dems love doing things this way.

Judging from Obama's retreating on the SS portion of today's dog and pony show, I'd say he's sensitive to this issue.

Perhaps all we really need to do is demand a full and very public accounting of this discussion (and every other one as well). Obama may not like that kind of heat.

"In our country, the lie has become not just a moral category but a pillar of the State" -- Alexander Solzhenitsyn


[ Parent ]
I don't follow. (0.00 / 0)
Doesn't fast track mean that the congress votes on it but can't offer amendments?  How then would they not go on the record?

No democracy and no one in congress has to go on the record as being in favor of this stuff.

Furthermore, don't they actually need to approve fast track before it can go into effect (as with the trade authority)?  Doing so would be very hard to justify, considering that they don't have the excuse that foreign governments already agreed to the terms of the bill.  So yeah, this is not really something that seems at all plausible to me.  If anything, it seems like he was using "fast track" colloquially.  


[ Parent ]
Sound familiar? NAFTA & Fast Track (0.00 / 0)
Every time they get a Democrat in the WH, they push this kind of crap.  Given the state of the economy, they think they have cover and people will "trust" Obama to do what they wouldn't even consider with a Republican President.  Smacks of Clinton and NAFTA.  

I didn't trust Obama before he was elected, and I still don't trust Obama.  He would rather "move forward" than make sure there is justice in America.  

Bush steals, tortures, kills and gets a pension.  WS steals and gets million dollar bonuses and a salary cap of 500K.  Americans created and paid into SS for their parents, themselves, and children, and we get funding cuts?   Americans who sacrificed and saved for their old age get ripped off, and they get too bad so sad?  How is this justice?  Smoke and mirrors and bull shit. I have watched this dance for 40 years.  We need a third political party to force parity for the people.  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  


[ Parent ]
The irony (4.00 / 6)
is we need a more massive welfare state now, than ever.

Especially as technology lengthens life and supplants semi-skilled and unskilled workers by the billions.

The basic social contract of Work for Food will be totally broken. The labor of the vast majority of people will not be wanted; what shall they do to eat?

How will people who planned for a 30 year maximum retirement sustain themselves when they are approaching their 111th birthday?

The Ayn Randian hope that 95% of the human race will gracefully fade away to let the remaining 5% live in utopia is contrary to any understanding of man or history.

Long before perishing of starvation and exposure, the people and their guillotines (or their modern equivalent) will be out in force; and as one wit said today "you will be able to kayak through the blood in the streets."

We've been here before: electricity and petroleum-fueled farm machinery rendered legions of independent farmers obsolete. The solution? Just look to FDR! Build up a massive welfare state which will do what the markets are trying to undo: provide as many people with a task and an income as possible.

Once you've done that, all you have to do is ensure that total consumption is a little less than total production, and channel as much of the savings differential into technological development as the democracy sees fit.

We had that in America and it was thrown away because Southern whites preferred penury rather than see "lesser races" prosper along with them. They are getting their wish.

David: you get it. And I admire and salute your efforts. I just want you to complete your total picture with the idea that your system won't work for long if consumption exceeds production. You have to reign in the id of the people and get them to live within their means.

You don't have to starve them. You don't have to expose them to the elements. You don't have to lash them with the whip. But you have to draw the line where they won't like it.

The bulk of neocon success was that they offered unrestrained id to the electorate and our people ate it up like heroin addicts. The neocons' purpose was and is nefarious: undermine virtues in order to enslave and then eliminate the people. Their overall strategy was sound from a game theory point of view and was working.

We can thank God (or the modern equivalent) that the neocons (in true monarchical fashion) chose W as their figure head. His ineptitude has given us the chance to break the spell of the neocons and to begin rebalancing the republic on a foundation of the restraint of the id rather than its exaltation.

So fight for jobs! But restrain consumption. Fight for the Welfare State! But fully fund it. And fight for the great America that our elders so foolishly let slip away; and in doing so know that you are the real conservative.

The irony.


Process vs. product (0.00 / 0)
As our deteriorating economy sends more and more people into desperation, there are going to be many more appeals for a czarism approach to policy making. I think leaders in the Democratic majority have to seriously consider how to make this trend work for their advantage despite the anti-democratic potential. For instance, railroading universal health care. Polls show that people are in favor of UHC but the minority position on this issue, which is totally bankrolled by drug and insurance companies, is constantly trumpeted in the media as a substantial populist pushback. If Dem leadership were to figure out a way to "fast track" UHC, how strongly would progressives dissent?

work for their advantage (0.00 / 0)
They are.  Why do people think they are just a bunch of bumbling fools?  

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Hear, Hear (4.00 / 1)
What's funny, of course, is that democracy and checks and balances were set up specifically to prevent the kind of thing that the Blue Dog Democrats are now trying to impose on the country. The Founding Fathers set up the legislative process - with its debates and amendments and deliberations - so as to prevent a tiny minority of elites from enacting policies that the broad majority of the public opposes.

This is the reason why spending/tax (not to mention war) decisions are vested in Congress (with a role for the President in proposing legislation and the veto.)  It's supposed to force deliberation over these important matters, thereby empowering the people to hold their government accountable.


Who are the best keepers of the people's liberties? The people themselves. The sacred trust can be no where so safe as in the hands most interested in preserving it.
James Madison


shock doctrine (4.00 / 5)
i just started naomi klein's shock doctrine, and what i see so far is that milton friedman and the chicago school of economics will never have their full ideal if left to democratic principles, which shows how bs it is to begin with

how any idea can feel right when it must be snuck in the back door in the middle of the night while everyone in the house sleeps, makes me laugh

whatever you think people owe you, that is what you owe people


AP's Liz Sidoti just added to the bullshittery (4.00 / 4)
I just posted a quick hit on this here:

AP's Liz Sidoti gets it wrong AGAIN, this time on Social Security

Which I might as well repeat here since it's short:

In an AP piece today, she made the following seemingly alarming assertion about Obama's alleged stance on Social Security:

He said he would reinstitute a pay-as-you-go rule that calls for spending reductions to match increases and would shun what he said were the past few years' "casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks." He called the long-term solvency of Social Security "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far" and said reforming health care, including burgeoning entitlement programs, was a huge priority.

Well, not exactly.

In fact, not at ALL, because this is what Obama ACTUALLY said today:

Now, I want to be very clear:  While we are making important progress towards fiscal responsibility this year in this budget, this is just the beginning.  In the coming years, we'll be forced to make more tough choices and do much more to address our long-term challenges, from the rising cost of health care that Peter described, which is the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far, to the long-term solvency of Social Security.

By misreading his words, whether willfully or lazily, she completely inverted what he said, which was clearly that "the rising cost of health care" was in fact what he viewed as "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far", and NOT "the long-term solvency of Social Security". You'd really have to be massively dense, a very poor or perhaps sleep-deprived reader, or intentionally dishonest, to misconstrue what he said to mean that "the long-term solvency of Social Security" was "the single most pressing fiscal challenge we face by far".

And we wonder why the media still refers to Social Security as being "near broke" and "in crisis". Of course, it didn't help that Obama himself repeated and thus reinforced such memes during the campaign. THIS is what happens when you parrot dishonest RW talking points in order to curry faux bipartisan favor with the Broderites and avoid a real fight. At least he finally appears to get it.

I think.

The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)


It's Just Incompetent Reporting (4.00 / 4)
It just goes to show that there are some massively incompetent people in the business I'm in.

But that's not exactly news, now is it?

I mean, it's one thing to get confused by a politician who's trying to confuse the issues.  That's not good.  A good journalist should never be confused.  That's what you're paid for--cutting through all the BS.  But at least it's understandable if you screw up and fail sometimes.

But this?  Manufacturing the confusion all on your own, when the politician isn't trying to confuse anyone?  This is incompetence on an epic plane.

And it's SOP for the national political press.

In terms of importance in the hierarchy of press responsibilities, they're at the very top.  But in terms of competence, I fear it's pretty much the opposite.

"Senate passes expanded GI bill despite Bush, McCain opposition"


[ Parent ]
It was only because of pressure from the left (4.00 / 2)
in terms of legislators in Congress and other left organizations that This was not a Summit solely to discuss the entitlement problems of Social Security.  

Elana Schor, terrific new person at TPM, on how Social Security was kept off the operating table.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo...

Dean Baker and the Campaign for America's Future  wrote loudly and often...while some on the left were quiet because they just couldn't believe that the new Obama administration really meant it.

Well they did really mean it. If all you propose is to raise the cap in some way, a regular bill that goes through committee would work just fine.  The reason you have a commission to do something you want to keep at some arm's length, to reduce your own fingerprints by getting lots of other people's fingerprints into the mix.

Well we have to keep up the pressure, inside by telling the the Obama administration that this is a dumb and dangerous fight to have now.  Outside as well.

And their entire rationale, that dealing with this is "responsible"  just keeps propping up and promoting right wing frames of "fiscal responsibility"

We need to keep up the pressure.  Complacency is lying in wait to trip us up.

Jane Hamsher at firedoglake on the press conference

http://firedoglake.com/2009/02...


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller


Everyday, I send an email to Obama and my elos... (0.00 / 0)
I want them to know that I am watching and not happy.  I am sick of stealth democrats.

They're asking for another four years -- in a just world, they'd get 10 to 20. ~~ Dennis Kucinich  

[ Parent ]
Obama needs to slow down and think (0.00 / 0)
Social Security is not the government's money.  It is our deferred wages that we put into FICA for our retirement and for affordable medical care when we retire. The surplus is there to pay our benefits when there are more retiring than working.

Don't believe anyone who says we want something for nothing.  We want our own money to be paid back, the money that has been legally borrowed by our government.

These projections that show a problem 75 years down the road are silly.  It is hard to project 5 years down the road.  The world will be different in 75 years.  We need to deal with the world as it is now.

Those on Social Security take a big cut in benefits when they retire at 62.  About 25% of their benefits are cut.


England (0.00 / 0)
I just have to correct you on your history. England was not a "dictatorship." The king was not an absolute ruler whose will was law. That was what Magna Carta, the development of Parliament and the revolution of the 17th century was all about: how to prevent England from being an absolute monarchy. And also, England was where habeas corpus and all the other constitutional rights that W trampled on came from.    

Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search