Faith based voting in the House
In 1776, the rallying cry was, "No taxation without representation."The Democrats are putting the calendar ahead of common sense and sound legislative practice. This problem is also a reflection of Democrat control freak legislation that leads to bills that would make corporate lawyers blush in their length and complexity. It is also laziness. It is hard work to be concise and complete.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 (www.pledgetoread.org) 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.
...
... a Politico story about the initial response by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D., Md.) when asked about a pledge: laughter. But then Hoyer backpedaled, saying that of course members, staff, or review boards read bills, or at least "substantial portions."
Hoyer's reaction shows that the priority is not to make informed judgments and improve legislation, Hanna suggests, but to rush through bad laws before anyone can object.
...
It reminds me of an old cartoon of Moses coming down from teh mountain with not just one tablet of stone witht he 10 Commandments but with his whole body covered with tablets he is trying to carry. The punch line is that he ran into a lawyer on the way down. The new punch line should be that he ran into Democrat legislators on the way down and has no idea what is on the tablets.
I recall from my high school civics classes that it used to be required that a proposed bill be read aloud in Congress before voting.
ReplyDeleteI thik it would be a good idea to mandate a full out-loud reading of every bill before a vote would be allowed to take place. At the very least, that would limit the amount of damage a Congress could do in any one session.