Villagers orgasm at prospect so-called "fiscal responsibility summit" could short-circuit democratic process
Check out this statement from the Concord Coalition [PDF], and check the institutions on the letterhead, and the signatories. It's the Village, alright:
[T]he President and others who share the goal of fiscal responsibility must address the fact that the regular political process has been [note lack of agency] incapable of dealing with long-term fiscal issues. We see no alternative but to create an independent and truly bipartisan commission or other mechanism capable of bringing about decisive action [translation: shock] that has broad public support [for some definition of "public"]. We therefore urge the President to support such a commission. For this commission or some other mechanism [Like what? The man on a white horse?] to break through the legislative logjam it will need four key elements:
• It must be truly bipartisan and develop solutions that command wide support.
• It must have a broad mandate to address all aspects of the fiscal problem while fostering strong economic growth.
• There must be no preconditions to the deliberations. All options must be on the table for discussion. Nobody should be required to agree in advance to any
• Recommendations must go before Congress for an up-or-down vote with few if any amendments. Such a game-changing process is not without precedents; controversial military base closings or the ratification of international trade agreements, for example, have long been governed by special rules along these lines, not by business as usual.
Pesky voters! Cut them out of the process and everything is easy!
Can anyone see the glaring flaw in the argument?
If there were solutions that commanded "broad public support" that the Village could accept our rulerz would already have proposed them. (Another example of the idea that: "If it were going to be done, it would already have been done."). Single payer, for example, would save the country $350 billion a year, be truly universal, and, if the experience of other countries is any guide, improve heatlh care outcomes as well. But since the insurance companies still want to profit by collecting fees by denying us care, and a percentage of those fees funds the think tanks, propagandists, and legislators who keep that business model firmly in place, single player won't be on the table at all; it's not serious.
The real issue, then, is not cutting the voters out of the loop. The issue is cutting the Village out of the loop. Say, who funds all the insitutions whose logos are on the letterhead, anyhow? Would those funders be happy with eliminating the voters from our political system? Just asking.