Congress Refuses to Read Bills Before Voting
 

This is from CNS, which is a far-right news blog, but the point they are making is pretty valid, I think. They want congress to agree to two things:

1) For every voting member of congress to pledge to read proposed legislation before voting on it, and

2) For all proposed legislation to be make publicly available for 72 hours before a vote may be called.

The first one might be difficult, but let's remember that these people are paid professionals, and they are being paid to represent our interests in their voting. They aren't being paid to sit back and enjoy the prestige of their position.

The second one seems so simple, and so obvious. It will increase the transparency of government, it will give the public a chance to voice their concerns over pork-barrel amendments BEFORE they are passed, and it will increase the accountability of our representatives to the people they are purported to represent. I realize those are all of the same reason why congress would never agree to it.

Oops. Sorry, here's the actual link:

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=50677

Don't forget that the Texas State Legislature once voted a commendation for Albert DeSalvo because of his novel methods of population control. Albert DeSalvo was known, except to them, as the Boston Strangler. The bill was introduced to test the intelligence of the Legislature.

But that was Texas.

That doesn't invalidate the point. We could have used it during the GOP's saddle time. We're basically dealing with two criminal organizations, transparency is about the best we could hope for. Even a pledge that staff would read through bills would improve things.

Is the proposal to read every bill before voting for it or before voting either for or against it?

I think the best we can hope is that the Congress's staffs read it. I do support the 72 hour rule, though.

I have very low expectations that any of these changes could occur in todays Congress.

I voss elected to leeeeead, not to reeeeeead.



I like the idea of the proposal, but some of those bills are well over 1,000 pages, and couched in all sorts of cross-referenced hokey legalese, so (1) reading it in 72 hours is nigh on impossible and (2) a single reading won't reveal all the quirky loopholes in it.

Still, it sounds like a step forward.

Pelosi planed that you would have that response. Along with all the other apathetic Americans.

I don't know what the situation is like for your congressmen, but over here, every MP has a number of advisors who are employed to do things like read bills and then tell the MP what it's all about in simple terms, simply because the advisors are experts in the particular field while the MP may or may not have any experience what so ever in the particular field he or she is appointed to manage.

Part 1 is reasonable, part 2 is not. Government does not need micromanagement from the electorate--that's what they are elected to do.

Government should not run Banks, Auto Companies, or Insurance industries either. Nor should they be in charge of your health care.

To late....

I remember two bills with amendments, one having to do with artists defaulting to 'work for hire' in studio contracts and another one allowing non-organic chicken to be labeled as organic, that noone admitted to reading before voting. The two very controversial amendments had to be repealed days after being enacted.

In the case of the anti-musician bill, the legislative aide who inserted the amendment was hired by the recording industry.

The 'fake organic' bill was opposed by everyone except the dumbass constituent who suggested it to his equally dumbass Congressman. It would have cost organic poultry producers billions in lost revenue when domestic and worldwide customers lost faith in any 'organic' label on US poultry.

Making them all read the bill, before voting it up or down, would probably be a waste of time, as I doubt they would understand what they read. That's why they have (trusted?) staff to tell them what these bills say and how they would really work in the real world.

Then after the straight dope is obtained from the staff, it is balanced against the booty offered by lobbyists, the pressure from the party whip, and how long to the next re-election campaign.

It's not easy being slick.

So, following that thought, do you classify Medicare, Medicaid and the medical services of the Veterans Administration as wrong and they should not exist?

And along that line, the government probably should have never gotten involved in overseeing voting procedures in individual states or in saying which kids should go to what schools but because of so many abuses in the past they had to.

I'm tired of the argument that a right to health care does not exist in the US Constitution. When the Constitution was ratified the average life expectancy was quite low for the colonists, many children (and birth mothers) died at birth or not long after and doctors were still using leaches and other barbaric practices to treat many ailments.

They should exist. Veterans Admin is a different animal altogether, completely unrelated to welfare.

Voting is covered in the Constitution. Schools is a states right issue which the Fed gov has no business being involved in.

Doesn't change the fact that in this country there is still no Constitutional right to health care.

I'm an apathetic American? Really? I mean, sure I'm complacent and self-indulgent, but where's my enormous car, and stockpile of automatic weapons? ;)


Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Except for the "straight dope" from the staff ...

The government is not running auto companies or banks or insurance companies. They are, however, trying to lookout for OUR interests in those companies, since taxpayers have had to bail them out.

Medicare is NOT welfare, NOR is it FREE. We all pay into the Medicare system through taxes that are taken out of our paychecks, then, once we qualify for Medicare (through age or disability), we still have to pay premiums and copays and 20% of whatever else is involved. In what way is that at all "welfare?"

I want them to write a bill that forces them to write bills that ONLY PERTAIN to the subject at hand. No more off-topic legislation being slipped in at the last minute that has nothing to do with the original bill. AND they should be written in plain, concise language that anyone can understand, and be as brief as possible while still covering everything completely. No more subterfuge. There is no reason why a bill should have to be 1000+ pages. Most novels aren't that long.

I'm willing to bet that most Americans feel this way. I am, however, unwilling to hold my breath waiting for it to happen.

:headshake

Why could you possibly think a law regulating dog walkers, or the acceptable number of rat droppings in ice cream, shouldn't be contained in a military appropriation bill? Heresy! :lol2:

The 'work for hire' affair was a fiasco which demonstrated the reason that there should be and now is a ban on individuals being hired as lobbyists for a certain period after leaving Congress.

The legislative staffer who inserted the 'technical adjustment' into the Satellite bill at the request of the RIAA was Mitch Glazier. When Congress found out about the amendment after voting the bill into law, they had to repeal the law, since the 'adjustment' was actually a significant change which would result in artists losing the rights to their work permanently. The repeal was unanimous. Mitch left town 3 months later.

As for Mitch Glazier, he's doing just fine

No conflict of interest there, huh?:right:

IMHO, that SOB should be in jail for perverting the democratic process. Not that I expected he would be, damn crook.

How does what one drives for a car define ones complacency? Who owns a stockpile of automatic weapons and how does this relate to self indulgence and car ownership?

Christ, Merc, pay attention.

:lol:

'twas attempted humour, sir, based on gentle mockery of a certain stereotype and a partial resemblance I share therewith; inspired by a grammatical ambiguity in the initial post.