First, we got stuck with a $787 billion dollar stimulus plan that no one read because we had to do something immediately or else unemployment would reach 8% (it’s currently at what? 9.5% right now?). Then, we watched the cap and trade bill fly through the house with out a soul in Congress being able to really speak intelligently about the bill. No one could say that they read a bill that was as long as the book Atlas Shrugged, and that’s probably the most honest thing they’ve done. After all, it was dropped mere hours before voting. Now, we’ve got health care reform being forced down our throat.
All of these bills are monstrous in their size, far to large for casual reading by regular taxpayers. We often have to depend on others to read and digest the bill, the dilute it down for us. The problem with this is that those diluting the bill down are almost universally biased, and it doesn’t let the American people really decide for themselves if a bill is bad, and why. We usually have to regurgitate someone else’s talking points on most issues.
The group, Downsize DC, proposed legislation several years ago called the Read The Bills Act. This bill requires Congress to read a bill out loud before the full chambers. A roll call would be required to ensure that all were present at the reading. Anyone who wasn’t would have to file an affidavit stating, under penalty of perjury, that they had read the bill.
Now, what would this really accomplish? Really?
Well, in theory, it would shorten bills considerably. Cap and trade was over 1,300 pages long after amendments were added in. No one read the blasted thing. Since it would have to be read aloud, theoretically it would have condensed the bill down to a manageable length. The easiest way to do that? Lose the lawyer language. Making a bill capable of being read and understood by the people who will be expected to abide by it is a huge deal in my mind.
Second, the way the bill is written, this would have to be done with every amendment as well. Gone would be the days of a senator attaching a random amendment to a bill that would change the scope of American law without anyone even noticing until after the fact. Now, it would be open for all the world to see.
In addition, bills would have to be published on the internet not less than seven days prior to voting. This, coupled with the other provisions, would drastically change how politics works in this country. Those seven days, along with the publishing requirements, would make it possible for the American people to read and comment on bills, making us part of the process again in a more meaningful way.
On this site, we’ve all been critical of Representative Sanford Bishop, and I feel with good cause. However, here’s a chance to champion something meaningful in the House that might earn him some respect that he’s lost in the 2nd District. Senator Isakson and Senator Chambliss can do the same thing in the Senate. This should not be a partisan issue. The ramming through of legislation is universally decried…but only by the minority party it seems.
A bill like the Read The Bills Act would level the playing field and force Congress to at least know what they’re voting for. It’s our lives and our money they’re playing with up there, and we need to hold them accountable. That’s hard to do when legislation we don’t even have time to read is being debated and voted on so quickly that it’s introduced and voted on before we even get off work.
We need them to “Read The Bills” now more than ever.
That unread foot high climate bill,”Cap & Trade”, etc. might even contain a clause to tax ranchers & dairymen for gaseous cattle emissions (farts ) as has been suggested,or even a tax on canned beans, saur kraut,green salads, etc. known to cause gaseous human emissions ( farts ). It’s hard to accept that we share the planet with idiots and ding bats that would consider such.
Tom,
I agree that a Read The Bill act is needed. At our healthcare town hall meeting, Congressman Sanford Bishop sent his field rep to read a 4 page letter. The letter contained the Democrat talking points, but had errors when compared to the actual bill he was describing. I asked if the Congressman ever reads the bills. His field rep admitted that the Congressman assigns portions of the bill to be read by his field specialists. It makes me wonder if he has outsourced all of his reading. We didn’t elect the field reps (Although I did like the one I met). Ultimately the vote falls back on the candidate we did elect. I fully support Read The Bill legislation.
I can understand tasking a field rep with a speciality to read a bill, but like you say, we didn’t elect them. There’s nothing wrong with discussing it with a staffer to get the pros and cons of a bill, which is what should happen. Unfortunately, as we all know, it doesn’t.
It’s my most sincere hope that this can change in the near future.
It’s frustrating and pathetic that there is even a need for the Read the Bills Act. We shouldn’t need a law to force lawmakers to ethically perform their duties. It is a sad sign of how low Congress has fallen.
I would think that the worst nightmare for any lawmaker is to discover after the fact that he had supported legislation that had an unintended consequence or an unnoticed provision contrary to his personal intentions.
The current Congress seems to have made this their Standard Operating Procedure. If tarring and feathering were still in vogue, there would be less of this legislative misconduct. I wish our own Rep. Sanford Bishop had the character to attend a public function to explain how he could vote for important legislation like the Stimulus and Cap & Trade without knowing what was contained in the bills.
I wish we had real representation at the federal level.