This type of thing is probably not unprecedented, but it’s particularly galling in a political environment in which it takes massive public pressure to even get debate on a bill people want, never mind an actual vote.
Last year, to much fanfare, and with support from both parties, Congress passed the STOCK act, an act designed to shed some light on the financial activities of public officials and political candidates. Among other things, the statute provided for a mechanism for ordinary people to obtain the information in easily readable downloadable formats. President Obama signed the bill, again to great fanfare, hailing it as a “good first step”.
Yesterday, to no fanfare at all, while the rest of us were worrying about Boston, Obama signed a bill that, while not quite repealing that “good first step” (that would be tacky and might draw attention), rendered it a meaningless shell. It was a Congressional con-job, enabled by an eager President. It passed with even broader Congressional support than the original act, proving once again a thesis I have propounded on occasion: the closer they come to unanimity the more reprehensible their product is likely to be:
Watchdog groups had hailed the passage of the bill last year, as it had wide bi-partisan support and satisfied the public need for added transparency. However, just months after the 2012 election, Congress furtively stripped the bill of major powers:
Both chambers of Congress quickly — and near silently — approved the repeal legislation at the end of last week by unanimous consent, just before heading home to their districts.
…
The Senate advanced the bill Thursday by unanimous consent, without debate or even briefly describing what it would do. The House signed off on the bill Friday using the same approach.
And, unfortunately, yesterday, President Obama completed this rope-a-dope deception by signing this new bill, which stripped key provisions from the STOCK Act and rolled back a lot of the progress that the original bill made in promoting transparency and open government. The bill was signed without any cameras or fanfare, which is in stark contrast to the very public signing of the actual STOCK Act. It seems President Obama was glad to parade around the signing of the pro-transparency bill, but was not so open about his reversal of the most important parts of it a year later! Open Secrets describes the key provisions stripped out of the bill and labels this action “A reversal of the STOCK Act”:
(via Daily Kos: Pres Obama Signs Bill Killing Anti-Corruption, Pro-Transparency STOCK Act Provisions)
I’m as cynical as the next guy, and I knew from the start that Obama was not the next Lincoln (even Lincoln wasn’t really Lincoln) but I have to admit that I’m astounded by the con job that Obama pulled off- not once, but twice. Now, we really had no choice, the alternatives being so much worse, but the second time around even I managed to get a little enthusiastic, and the first time I really had hope (remember “hope?”).
Of course this minor piece of treachery is nothing compared to Obama’s seemingly implacable desire to repeal the New Deal. I mean, even the right wasn’t exactly clamoring for privatization of the TVA, and they were by no means demanding that we cut Social Security, though of course they welcome the chance to do so and then blame the Democrats. And, lest you think that Obama honestly thinks that chained CPI is really a more honest way to calculate changes in the cost of living, think again. As Dean Baker observes, The Obama Administration Is Scared of an Accurate Consumer Price Index:
It would have been helpful to note this fact in an article discussing the Obama administration’s proposal to cut Social Security benefits by adopting a chained consumer price index as the basis for Social Security cost of living adjustments (COLA). The piece notes claims that the chained CPI provides a more accurate measure of the rate of inflation, then tells readers:
“Some argue that the chained CPI would cheat seniors by understating inflation for the elderly, who spend more on health care. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has found conflicting evidence on that point.”
Actually the Congressional Budget Office did not find conflicting evidence on this point, it just noted that the evidence is not conclusive. If the White House was interested in an accurate measure of the rate of inflation seen by seniors then it could instruct the Bureau of Labor Statistics to construct a full elderly CPI that would track the actual consumption patterns of the elderly. It has steadfastly refused to consider this proposal, which could lead to a higher annual COLA.
The Post should have made this point so that readers would recognize that the goal of the Obama administration is to cut Social Security, not make the COLA more accurate. Some people may be confused on this point.
(via Beat the Press)
There is a distinct disadvantage to the current situation. Had Romney been elected, the battle lines would be clear. Romney would no doubt have wanted to do exactly what Obama is trying to do, but Democrats would have had a clear and powerful political incentive to oppose him. They now go into battle with a leader who is essentially fighting for the other side. If both major parties are intent on selling people out, and if voters cast about for an alternative, this country being what it is; our media being what it is; the power of money being what it is; that alternative will be from the right, dressing itself up in populist rags. Obama, unless our Congresspeople, against all odds, engage in massive resistance, is handing the Social Security and Medicare programs over to the tender mercies of the Republican Party, which will pose as their savior, and proceed to reform them to their deaths.