Let reading ring!!!!!

[Foxfyre]

Does anybody oppose the proposal that federal legislators take a pledge to pass no legislation without reading and understanding what's in it? How about a federal law mandating that they cannot vote on legislation until it has been posted for the voters' perusal for at least 72 hours?

It is obvious that President Obama isn't going to stick to his campaign pledge not to sign anything into law until it has been posted for 72 hours. So how about a law requiring that of Congress? Any objections?

Back Channels: Imagine: Reading a bill before passing it
By Kevin Ferris

In 1776, the rallying cry was, "No taxation without representation."
Today, it could be, "No taxation without totally clueless representation."

That's what Americans got on June 26, when the House voted 219-212 for the "cap-and-tax" energy bill, as the Republicans refer to it. The bill ran more than 1,000 pages, and before members had time to digest that tome, 300 pages of amendments were added after midnight. When Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R., Ohio) started to read the additions, bill cosponsor Henry A. Waxman (D., Calif.) objected. He was rebuffed. There are no time limits for comments by House leaders.

"When you file a 300-page amendment at 3:09 a.m., the American people have a right to know what's in this bill," Boehner said.

Whether this bill will lessen greenhouse-gas emissions - as Democrats hope - or kill countless jobs - as Republicans predict - or ever pass the Senate, remains to be seen. But the House vote did raise a question that cuts across party and ideology:

How can lawmakers vote on something so important without a thorough understanding of what's in it?

Not the everyday "We hereby rename this post office in honor of so-and-so" or "We officially declare this Goldfish Month." The big things, like an almost $800 billion stimulus plan, or an energy package that Politico said "would transform the country's economy and industrial landscape."

Actually reading such legislation, as the founders might say, should be self-evident.

But apparently not. So a little nudge is in order, especially with health-care reform looming.

One nudger is Colin Hanna, a former Chester County commissioner and president of the conservative advocacy group Let Freedom Ring. He has begun a campaign (Let Freedom Ring | Pledge to Read) that asks members of the House and Senate to promise the following:

"I . . . pledge to my constituents and to the American people that I will not vote to enact any health-care reform package that:

"1) I have not read, personally, in its entirety; and,

"2) Has not been available, in its entirety, to the American people on the Internet for at least 72 hours, so that they can read it too."

Let Freedom Ring isn't alone. A consortium of liberal and good-government groups is backing readthebill.org, and a libertarian group, DownsizeDC.org, essentially wants the two planks of Hanna's pledge enacted as federal law.

Having been a commissioner, Hanna understands that lawmakers can't read every line of every bill, but he argues that in some cases it's necessary.

"There are certain issues of scope and importance that demand an extra measure of due diligence, including reading the bill in full," he said in an interview. Health care, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus all rise to that level, he says, adding that legislators dismiss this sentiment at their peril.

"There is a rising public demand that bills be read," he says. "And there is a rising public outrage against politicians who dismissively suggest that's just the way Washington works."
MORE HERE:
Back Channels: Imagine: Reading a bill before passing it | Philadelphia Inquirer | 07/19/2009

 

[EriktheRed]

Got no problem with that myself.

We might see a bit less pork which has nothing to do with the main point of the legislation. Everything has some kind of downside, though...

 

[Big Black Dog]

It is obvious that President Obama isn't going to stick to his campaign pledge not to sign anything into law until it has been posted for 72 hours.

I knew this was horseshit when he said it. What a dope.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Does anybody oppose the proposal that federal legislators take a pledge to pass no legislation without reading and understanding what's in it? How about a federal law mandating that they cannot vote on legislation until it has been posted for the voters' perusal for at least 72 hours?

It is obvious that President Obama isn't going to stick to his campaign pledge not to sign anything into law until it has been posted for 72 hours. So how about a law requiring that of Congress? Any objections?

I am in total agreement. And it would help if potential candidates for office in any party had to pass a sort of exam set up by the ,members of their own party. That would be a hoot.

In a public hearing in SOmerville Ma. I was gavelled down by Mayor C*** because I exposed just this sort of thing. An Alderman proposed a bill or amendment on which he could answer no questions whatsoever. (had to do with zoning and a parcel of land for big box store development...I also mentioned the fact that the mayor's former campaign worker....oops)


\i know public oifficials have help or input in writing bills...no problemo. What I object to is having outsiders write the whole thing. that smacks more of corruption

 

[Foxfyre]

Does anybody oppose the proposal that federal legislators take a pledge to pass no legislation without reading and understanding what's in it? How about a federal law mandating that they cannot vote on legislation until it has been posted for the voters' perusal for at least 72 hours?

It is obvious that President Obama isn't going to stick to his campaign pledge not to sign anything into law until it has been posted for 72 hours. So how about a law requiring that of Congress? Any objections?

I am in total agreement. And it would help if potential candidates for office in any party had to pass a sort of exam set up by the ,members of their own party. That would be a hoot.

In a public hearing in SOmerville Ma. I was gavelled down by Mayor C*** because I exposed just this sort of thing. An Alderman proposed a bill or amendment on which he could answer no questions whatsoever. (had to do with zoning and a parcel of land for big box store development...I also mentioned the fact that the mayor's former campaign worker....oops)


\i know public oifficials have help or input in writing bills...no problemo. What I object to is having outsiders write the whole thing. that smacks more of corruption

Well, apparently the current health care legislation is being written by staffers and lobbyists--I doubt more than a half dozen Congresspersons or Senators could coherently answer any questions about any of the details and, as it will run more than 1000 pages as the Cap & Trade bill did, they won't read that either. It will likely be delivered in the dead of night and passed without our representatives reading it and with the minimum of debate before the vote.

Some of the most objectionable stuff will be removed from the Senate and House bills but will be reinserted during the conference and the final bill again will not have been read by the time it has passed. And by the time we learn what they have actually done to us, it will be too late......

UNLESS......

We can raise enough hell to get that pledge enacted before they vote on the bill.

Once we get that pledge--preferably a law in place mandating they have to read that kind of bill and advise us of what is in it before anybody votes . . . . .

THEN, we can start on a campaign to require that no 'pork barrel' initiatives will be included in any omnibus spending bill. They can pass the bills to run the government, but anything extra for any organization, trust, state, etc. has to be presented all by itself and voted up or down all by itself.

I think that would weed out most of the nonsense such as tens of thousands of dollars awarded to some outfit to study whether pigeons follow the same economic principles as humans. (That honest-to-God WAS authorized some years ago.)