More Reflections On The "Super Congress"

In Sunday's post I expressed my initial reaction to the so-called Super Congress being bandied about by Harry Reid to resolve the federal spending crisis,

"On that theme, I find the Senate's floating of the concept of a 'Super Congress' of a dozen members drawn from the two parties and each chamber, equally, to wrestle with spending and debt problems, to be the height of both arrogance and evasion of responsibility.



I think American voters are tiring of so many important fiscal decisions taking place among a few legislators behind closed doors. If I were cynical, I'd suggest this Super Congress is an attempt to freeze out the influence of the Tea Party movement.


Of course, one wonders if it's even Constitutional. For sure, it's yet another sign that our elected Congress members can't seem to just do their job, and look to endlessly pass the buck to various Commissions, study groups, committees and such."


I'm writing this on Sunday evening, so there may have been subsequent repudiation of the idea before this publishes. No matter.

As I've mulled the concept over this afternoon, I find it increasingly repugnant and indicative of a chamber totally out of touch with the American electorate.

Of course, only 33 or so members were elected, leaving the Democats in control, so that may explain the Senate's failure to comprehend the scope and nature of the Tea Party-triggered insistence of so many voters for deep, lasting spending cuts.

The House, being totally elected every two years, is much closer, by design, to the voters' impulses. I don't think the GOP House members will countenance such an abrogation of it's chamber's Constitutional power to originate spending bills. Handing this off to a commission half-composed of Senators isn't going to sit well with them.

Moreover, it seems to me that only hoary Senators could possibly miss the disgust of most voters with Washington's way of doing business. Thinking that by officially closeting a few Senators and Representatives behind closed doors, the very weighty issues of cutting spending and entitlements can be re/solved.

These are the very cornerstones of liberal Democratic idiocy dating back to 1935. There's no way that their restructuring will be legitimate if conceived in secret by 12 members of Congress.

Better, instead, to nominate a spectrum of private sector and academic cognoscenti to suggest an array of options.

The last people you'd trust with knowing how to handle fixing such poorly-designed programs are 12 members of Congress- Democratic or Republican.

But the larger issue is that Reid and other Senators are so conceited as to think that creating a sub-Congress to do what they don't seem to be able to do is acceptable to voters. They duck doing their jobs, then think that by some sleight of hand, they can fool voters.

Let's replace every one of the bastards in the Senate- or House- who dares vote for such a contemptible way out of just fixing the massive entitlement mistakes in Congress, in the open, as they all were elected to do.