Too Much of a Good Thing Why we need less democracy.(Former Obama Director)

The New Republic ^ | 09/27/11 | Peter Orszag

[Billthedrill]

Thank you for the link. I can sum up the fellow's case: that legislative "gridlock" is preventing actions being taken that "experts" all agree ought to be; that a means "around politicians" is to be constructed consisting of theoretically nonpartisan committees that will provide lists of recommendations that the President will present to Congress in an all-or-nothing vote in which if Congress does not turn them down by joint resolution, they're automatically law. Lovely. Now I'll translate: the House is in the hands of Republicans who are refusing to pass policies they consider harmful as they are charged to do under the Constitution; that a way around this is to take such decisions out of the hands of the House and place them in the hands of the Executive, who will work around the House by presenting programs to Congress as a whole. Should both the Senate and the House fail to turn them down the House can't do anything about it.

What this does is remove the control of the purse strings from the House of Representatives as specified in Article I of the Constitution. The motivation is not to break any gridlock but to enable the Democrats to get whatever they want despite Republican control of the House. That "gridlock" is, in fact a very proper function of the House and is precisely why the power of funding was placed there in the first place.

The author reveals himself in his examples, including environmental policy and the budget. With regard to the latter, he states that every competent economist agrees that high deficits are only to be fought in the long term and are to be encouraged in the short term in order to help the economic recovery. This is, in fact, a blatant lie, and the House has refused to go along. This, to the author, is that "harmful gridlock" that is "hurting the nation." To anyone with a minimal ability to wipe off the thick layers of hogwash it is the American government functioning precisely as designed.

In short, it is not "less democracy" the author is really calling for, but more power placed into fewer, unelected, unaccountable hands who will be able to enact policies that are not acceptable to that elected body that is accountable, that most closely represents the current mood of the electorate. These are the economic and political tools of big-F Fascism, and I mean that in a literal sense. Less democracy, more fascism. Catchy slogan.

[GeronL]

That was a month or two ago, it was all over FR! How did you miss that?

[GeronL]

While I don’t disagree with Orzag’s ideas here

??

You think unelected bureaucrats should make the law and policies??

[GeronL]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-once-again-declares-he-wants-to-circumvent-congress/

[philman_36]

Thank you for the link.
Oh, it was definitely my pleasure.
And you made a great analysis.

In short, it is not "less democracy" the author is really calling for, but more power placed into fewer, unelected, unaccountable hands who will be able to enact policies that are not acceptable to that elected body that is accountable, that most closely represents the current mood of the electorate.
Hear, hear!

[MileHi]

Need to stand this guy near an architecturally pleasing wall, give him a Marlboro and then count ready!, aim!...

[philman_36]

Poor, poor Peter, he's not so new at this as one might believe...
From the cached link as it's been substantially changed now...
Peter R. Orszag
According to the New York Times website summary of Orszag's biography:
Peter R. Orszag was President Obama's first budget director, helping to shape the 2009 stimulus package and the health care legislation passed in early 2010. Mr. Orszag promoted and carried out an effort by the White House to pry away from Congress some of the responsibility for making hard decisions, especially when it comes to the budget. In the process, he signaled that an administration populated from the top down by Capitol Hill alumni was intent on altering the balance of power between the branches of government.

[philman_36]

Straight to the horse's mouth...

Peter R. Orszag
Mr. Orszag pushed for and won a controversial provision to create something called the Independent Payment Advisory Board. This is an outside commission of 15 appointees who will, beginning in 2014, identify cuts to Medicare if the plan exceeds a preset rate for growth.

He's already done what he proposes should be done.
Isn't that called a "done deal"?

[philman_36]

...and look at that turd that got dropped out the other end of the horse.

[PeterPrinciple]

He concludes that, despite the risks, rising polarization justifies the increased use of these types of commissions.

---

So do you agree with the author? The way to stop the suicide of democracy is to create bureaucracy, eliminating the polarization of of govt?

[PeterPrinciple]

that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

---

I absolutely DO NOT WANT an efficient govt......................

and neither did our founders.

[PeterPrinciple]

that paralyzing gridlock is the result.

---

I absolutely DO NOT WANT an efficient govt......................

and neither did our founders.

[DustyMoment]

You think unelected bureaucrats should make the law and policies??

Ummmm . . . . no. I didn't read the article and went from the idea that he was promoting less government.

My bad.

[DustyMoment]

Unfortunately for me, I didn’t read the article and went from the idea that he was promoting less government.

My bad.

[Gritty]

And in other current news, Ceasar Chavez agrees wholeheartedly, as does Robert Mugabe and Vladimir Putin...

[dfwgator]

And in other current news, Ceasar Chavez agrees wholeheartedly

If he were still alive he would.

_{I think you meant, Hugo}

[Gritty]

I think you meant, Hugo

*blush*

You're right. I got the grape guy confused with gulag guy. Not much difference though.

[philman_36]

So do you agree with the author?
Do I agree that the nation should be run largely by committees? No, I don't agree with the author....not by a long shot.
It's too much consolidation of power into too small of a group and there is no Constitutional provision for enacting this plan.
(not that such a thing gets in the way of Liberals/Progressives)
And many of these committees could/would have members who go through no election process whatsoever and who are nothing more than political appointees.

[philman_36]

My bad.
Understood. Not a problem.

[SnakeIz]

The Senate will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word from Washington that President Obama has dissolved it permanently. The last remnants of the American Republic have been swept away forever. The czars now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the locals in line.