David Sirota

David Sirota
Location
Denver, Colorado,
Birthday
November 02
Title
Columnist
Bio
David Sirota is a political journalist, best-selling author and nationally syndicated newspaper columnist living in Denver, Colorado. He is a senior fellow at the Campaign for America's Future , the founder of the Progressive States Network and a Senior Editor at In These Times magazine, which in 2006 received the Utne Independent Press Award for political coverage. He also blogs for Credo Action. and the Denver Post's PoliticsWest website. His two books, Hostile Takeover (2006) and The Uprising (2008) were both New York Times bestsellers. In the years before becoming a full-time writer, Sirota worked as the press secretary for Vermont Independent Congressman Bernard Sanders, the chief spokesman for Democrats on the U.S. House Appropriations Committee, the Director of Strategic Communications for the Center for American Progress, a campaign consultant for Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer and a media strategist for Connecticut Senate candidate Ned Lamont. He also previously contributed writing to the website of the California Democratic Party. For more on Sirota, see these profiles of him in Newsweek or the Rocky Mountain News. Feel free to email him at lists [at] davidsirota.com

David Sirota's Links

Salon.com
Editor’s Pick
JULY 30, 2009 2:35PM

"Parochial Considerations"

Rate: 5 Flag

Last week, my newspaper column looked at how our media and political elites limit the scope of policy debates to very narrow, very ideologically driven parameters. In this Brave New World, the propaganda is somewhat subtle, in that there's no Big Brother overtly saying certain things can or cannot be discussed. Instead, it's propaganda and extreme ideology via omission and euphemism - certain things get talked about in very vague platitudes, other things don't get talked about at all.

Case in point is the resurrected proposal to deal with the budget deficit by taking power away from our elected government, and giving it to an unaccountable "nonpartisan" commission empowered to slash expenditures as it sees fit, all under the veneer of pragmatic empiricism. This is a demand being made alternately by Sens. Joe Lieberman and George Voinovich, and by the loudest vote auctioneers in Congress, the "Blue Dog" Democrats. Here's how the Wall Street Journal's slavish D.C. bumlicker Gerald Seib describes it:

[The proposal] would establish a national commission to examine the nation's tax system and the mammoth entitlement programs of Social Security and Medicare, and come up with a coherent way to pay all the bills coming due.

The commission would have 20 members from both parties, from both the executive and legislative branches, and would be charged with drafting a proposal to fix the long-term fiscal mess...

This may be the only way to cut through the parochial considerations that are causing fiscal problems to fester.

First, notice how the commission would be limited to balancing the budget only through tax "reform" and Social Security and Medicare spending "reform." This, of course, is far from empiricism - it is extremist ideology unto itself. Somehow, a budget poised to spend $7 trillion on the Pentagon, $23 trillion on handouts to Wall Street, and billions more on ongoing corporate welfare subsidies must be balanced only through "reforms" to taxes and the two programs that care for the old and the sick.

We can thank Seib for putting it so plainly. Evidently, Congress isn't giving into "parochial considerations" when it hands Goldman Sachs billions of dollars to fund the company's executive bonuses. Apparently, there's no "parochial considerations" at work when a Vice President directs massive defense contracts to a company that still pays him. Clearly, there's no "parochial considerations" at work when defense contractors line lawmakers pockets in exchange for military pork projects. However, the two programs that undergird the basic health, welfare and retirement security of the general population of the United States? Sorry, that's a "parochial consideration" that must be dealt with harshly.

Of course, this absurd logic is precisely why the Washington Establishment knows it needs an authoritarian commission to do its dirty work.

You see, elected officials can't be expected to be able to go back home to voters and explain a plan to simultaneously slash Social Security and Medicare while preserving Pentagon waste and corporate welfare. Indeed, with polls already showing that the public thinks we're wasting way too much cash on bailouts and defense, if lawmakers come home with such a proposal, they'll get booted from office.

Put another way, basic democracy - yes, the lumpen proles implicitly promising electoral retribution for those who prioritize corporate welfare over their retirement and health care - is getting in the way of the Establishment's drive to divert cash from Social Security and Medicare into corporate welfare. And so the only way to make such an extremist plan possible is to empower a czarist commission to supercede Congress and completely circumvent democracy - all in the name of noble, disinterested nonpartisan empiricists benevolently helping America "cut through parochial considerations."

The question is how much any of this will fool the country? It's hard to say, and I wish I was confident that the populace will pick up on the sleight of hand. But I'm not. The Political-Media-Industrial Complex is so fucking powerful these days, and Americans are so understandably busy just trying to survive the recession, that even the shoddiest and least convincing schemes could work. I sure hope they don't.

Author tags:

health care

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
Exactly--the assumptions frame the language, and the language frame thes policy, with the upshot being that everyone now accepts as givens positions that would have been hard-right 40 years ago.

They lose elections, but they keep winning where it counts.
Thanks for bringing this proposal up in this forum; it's not exactly the headline on any cable news show...for obvious reasons.

I might have known about it if I read Seib more often, but I get so tired of holding my nose while I do it...

Rated.