What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
Scary Quiz - Do you have what it takes to attract women? view!
doubleyourdating.com - Think you know a thing or two about meeting women? Take this quiz and find out...
122 Comments
- drgkstep, on 10/11/2007, -2/+118oh you mean like the patriot act, the budget bills or for that matter almost every piece of legislation that gets passed. when's the last time you watched congress on c-span, empty house every time. the bills that go through congress often have grand titles (the clear skys act, patriot act, campaign finance reform act) that often have little or nothing to do with their content. they're packed full of unrelated riders and pork spending.
congress is failing the test...time to elect a new president and a new congress and teach them all a lesson. - doubledoh, on 10/11/2007, -2/+62Make Congress READ the laws it passes:
http://www.downsizedc.org/read_the_laws.shtml - mattxb, on 10/11/2007, -2/+61@drgkstep
I agree. It should be illegal to title bills. They should just have a number. It might make it a little more confusing for reporters and the media, but all the better if it makes senators and congress people realize that its the content of the laws that counts, and not the public perception. When you think about it its kind of ridiculous they name these things anyway, and it amounts to a form of political manipulation. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+55How many members of Congress read the Patriot Act? Ron Paul says it was delivered the day it was passed.
Patriot Act statistics according to Microsoft Word 2003:
Pages: 140
Paragraphs: 2,234
Words: 56,889 - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -3/+51If Congress read legislation we'd have less of it, much smaller government and less taxes.
- M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+36@doubledoh
It is funny and tragically sad at the same time when they have to pass a bill telling themselves to 'read the bills'. sigh. - JD52, on 10/11/2007, -0/+34In my honest opinion I think that anyone who admits to passing something without reading it should be immediately removed from their position.
There is no accountability whatsoever in our dear government.
Imagine a company exec making decisions without having all the facts... oh wait... bad example. - diggsuxxxx, on 10/11/2007, -2/+31these senators sound a lot like digg users. somebody tell them about RTFA...
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+32@corrosionix, actually, I'd be surprised if he did. Putting limits on or tests for who can or can't vote on a given bill, for whatever well-meaning purpose, seems pretty unconstitutional.
A much better proposal, IMO, would be a "Simplify the Bills" law, which requires all bills to be written in plain English, limited to one subject, free of hidden riders, and not so big or complex that no one person can possibly know all the details. - pintomp3, on 10/11/2007, -0/+21it's a sad day when our senate is like digg. people digging (voting for) articles (bills) without reading them, only the title. and then going on to argue about something they haven't even read.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+19This just makes me angry. The Congress takes so much time off every year (like almost half, I believe?) because their job is supposed to be hard and demanding. Well, not if they don't do their freakin job! There needs to be some sort of accountability. Congress's self-accountability system obviously doesn't work any more. People resign for having affairs, but nobody cares when they DON'T READ BILLS that they VOTE on. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
- PueSi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Here in Mexico we have a channel that broadcast everything that happens at Congress, it's ridiculous people are either not there or chitchatting.
Last time i checked if i miss work just because I'll probably get fired, they should too. - Travisx2, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17So, the administrations defense,
as I am reading it here, is that it doesn't matter if the
intelligence was misleading, since no senators actually read it.
.....before voting
.....to go to war.
I mean,, that's not what the article said, but that's what it means - EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -4/+20"Sounds like they have nothing to stand on when it comes to their anti-war comments to me."
Except, perhaps, reality. The war, like this administration, is a miserable failure and a really bad idea, not only in retrospect. It's been proved time and time again.
And, btw, _I_ knew there were no WMD before we started the bloody thing. I knew, because I watched Colin Powell present his "smoking gun evidence" which would have been laughed out of any court in the nation. I knew, because they said this was the best evidence they had, and it was ***** -- a vial of anonymous yellow powder they bought and a satellite picture of a truck.
Therefore they had nothing, except their wishes and fabrications. It was clear to anyone who looked. People simply didn't care. That's all I can figure.
And as evidence, I present the fact that the same neocons who were wrong or lied about Iraq are being listened to seriously about their views on Iran. It's happening all over again. - OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+15Hillary Clinton is full of *****. She's no more a Democrat than Bush is a Republican. They're both part of the system.
What America needs to do is vote outside the two-party, corporate lobby-owned system. Vote for true outsiders who are willing to take the system on. - MatttK, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14@M4tt3r: Hopefully they pass such a bill without reading it.
- Rodman930, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14Congress: "What do you mean we passed a bill that we have to read bills? I don't remember reading that!"
- 5urr3al5am, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Isn't that like saying... "It's not really my fault.. when I voted, I didn't know what it said.. because I wasn't able to understand it and I didn't do my job .... So thats why I voted for it..!?"
How pathetic you are! What's stopping anyone from taking that stance of zero accountability and saying that? - joybran, on 10/11/2007, -3/+14@ maskidat
"Dennis was the only one brave enough to carry out his long Ohio tradition of being for the people instead of the corporations. "
The only one? Ron Paul voted against it, and he was brave enough to vote against his own party. - maskidat, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14Dennis Kucinich read it. That's why he voted against it--alone. But the media, who have taken over our voting duties, buried him.
But, he was right and he's still right! Watch how he told it like it was at
www.kucinich.us
And yes, EntropyMan, Simplify! Simplify! - SwissCamel, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11wtf im not reading all of that.
- Wacer, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9I wonder if news like this stemmed from when Ron Paul caught the other Republican candidates not reading the 9/11 commission. Hopefully there is growing interest in the news to check on politicians to see if they even read and study reports so they know what the hell is going on when they vote on something.
- kufu91, on 10/11/2007, -1/+9You're missing the point.
we have democrats who didn't read the intelligence reports.
we have republicans who haven't read the 9/11 commission report.
we have an entire congress that didn't read the patriot act.
We've got a problem far greater then some partisan arm wrestle - p0tent1al, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Let me basically sum this ***** up.
Basically, she VOTED for the war.
Now people who voted for it are becoming unpopular.
Now her excuse is that she didn't read the report, which would of probably swayed her decision, if she would of known she would of *NEVER* voted for the bill.
Basically this is a huge ***** excuse as to why she, and others voted for the war. Calling big ***** on this one. - UtahApocalyse, on 10/11/2007, -2/+9"Madame President, We have a situation, here is the documents to consider before launching a full out nuclear strike"
"Read? I'm not sure I have time for that, Just launch the attack" - joybran, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8@ thedr96run
"Kind of like nothing was mentioned about a minimum wage increase tacked on to the latest war spending bill... That's great for those making minimum wage, but ultimately devalues my salary when the cost of everything goes up to reflect the change. Oh Happy Day...Inflation!"
I agree with your point that the minimum wage increase should not have been tacked on to the war spending bill, but you are wrong about the minimum wage increase being great for those making minimum wage and about inflation being a result of increased minimum wages.
Inflation is caused by money being created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve Banks. There is a lot more of it than the government is willing to admit, which is why so many people are finding their standard of living going down even though they may be making a higher wage.
What the increase in the minimum wage does is hurt the poorest people by pricing them out of the job market. Business owners can't just raise their prices to cover their increased labor costs, so many businesses have to either go out of business or hire fewer people. If they have to lay off people, it is the least productive who get laid off, like young workers and disabled people. That means more people going on welfare and living off the taxpayers.
While most minimum wage earners don't get laid off and do get a raise they wouldn't have otherwise gotten, it sometimes means workers just above minimum wage don't get the raises they would have gotten. Whatever the individual business owner decides to do about his sudden increase in costs, the fact is that the money has to come from somewhere, and it isn't likely to come out of profits because he would be better off to close his business than risk his capital for no profit. - joybran, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7If they had to read the bills, the bills would be shorter and wouldn't include all the hidden things that get sneaked in, and nobody could later claim to angry constituents that they didn't know what they voted on.
- EntropyMan, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7@m4tt3r (btw, hard to type name):
I'm not saying it's okay for them to not know what they're voting for. I'm saying that sometimes their staffers work on the individual bills and the Senator relies on their staffer's opinions, which isn't ideal, but it's not as bad as people are making out. What matters is that someone qualified is watching out for BS and understanding the implications of the new law, preferably the most competent legal scholars on the team.
Some Senators aren't even lawyers by training, so reading dense legalese, while appealing, is not useful if they won't understand all aspects of the bill (see my earlier point about simplicity).
For example, here's a part of the "Read the Bill" act you favor. It suffers from the same thing that makes it impossible for me (or most lay people ) to actually READ this. Notice how it amends text of laws that are not included in the bill itself.
How the hell am I supposed to decipher this? We have technology, even in MS Word, that can show me the markup and changes in a way that makes sense. Why not use that?!
"(a) Chapter 2 of Title 1, United States Code, shall be amended by inserting at the end of the first sentence of Section 106, the following: “provided however, that no bill — including, but not limited to, any bill produced by conference between the two houses of Congress and any bill or resolution extending, modifying, or otherwise affecting the expiration date of a bill previously passed and enacted into law by Congress — shall pass either house of Congress: (a) without the full text of said bill, and the full text of each and every amendment thereto and — if the bill or resolution extends, modifies, or in any way affects the expiration date of a bill previously passed and enacted into law — without the full text of such bill or resolution and the full text of the bill previously passed and enacted into law having first been individually read verbatim by the Clerk of each house to the body of each house called to order and physically assembled with a quorum present throughout the time of the full textual reading of said bill, and of the full text of any bill previously passed and enacted into law, if any, that is the subject of a bill or resolution extending, modifying or in any way affecting the expiration date of such previously passed bill enacted into law; and (b) without the full text of said bill, and the full text of each and every amendment thereto, and the full text of the previously passed bill and enacted into law, if any, having been published verbatim on the official Internet web site of each house at least seven days prior to a final vote thereon in each house, together with an official notice of the date and time on which the vote on the final version of said bill and its amendments will take place.”
So no, I'm not going to Read the whole Bill on Reading the Bill. It hurts my brain. And I read legal contracts and patents often enough. This is a whole other ball of wax.
I'm sticking with the best idea I know: simplify the bills so that anyone can read them. I'd be fine making all Congresspeople sign a statement saying that they UNDERSTAND all of the provisions and implications of the bill. But having them say they simply read it is a waste of time, IMO.
And on Brewsky's "remove 5 bills for every 1 passed" idea. Interesting. But what about simply requiring all bills to have a mandatory sunset, and converting all existing laws to such a schedule on some manageable basis? - aschocobo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+8no. the senators themselves, maybe, but not their kids. children shouldn't never be made to pay for their parents' mistakes.
- Robotsu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Please forgive my rather glib response. Two words:
No *****. - PhilLesh69, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Nah, because then she'll just veto or sign a bill into law based on what her advisers, the people she appointed from big industry based on how much they donated to her campaign and helped her get into office, say.
But, to be fair, it isn't just Hillary. It's ALL OF THEM!!!
This is the "democracy" in its rawest form, the democracy we've been distracted from seeing all these years.
and it started long long ago. Eisenhower told us about it, he tried to warn us. It was his greatest fear. Just go to Google Video and search for "Eisenhower Farewell Address" to see what I mean. - M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7@EntropyMan
What's the point of that, if they STILL don't read them? :) - gdgi, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Admits that she didn't read possibly the most critical 'turning point' legislation of the past decade and then wants to be elected president so she can do it on a largescale basis?
- saigumi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6So, does this mean Hillary and the other Democrats lied that they were lied to when they signed the bill on going into Iraq since they didn't even read it?
- itsme92, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6@doubledoh
Am I the only one that think that RTBA looks kinda like RTFA? - stealthc, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Of course they didn't read it. As many have already pointed out, they don't even read the laws they vote on. They're too busy running around doing fund raisers to do the job people expect from a congressperson. If you're in the House or the Senate today, your job boils down to: Making promises to special interests for campaign funds, campaigning for your next term in office, voting on a law on behalf of your funding sources, spinning that vote into some kind of moral structure so the voters don't figure you out, and in your spare time doing your real job in Congress. But only if you're not on vacation. Unfortunately they are so saturated with money interests and a packed schedule it never occurs to them the Constitution might be a guide in their voting.
The worst part is that none of this is necessary, yet they all do it anyway because they are so afraid of losing their cushy job in Congress. Ron Paul has managed to avoid the trap of focusing on money by sticking to the Constitution. Special interests know he won't go along with them. This has allowed him to *truly* vote his conscience and vote the Constitution, and maintain moral consistency. - Toshibi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I think SwissCamel was making a joke....
- Oracle95, on 10/11/2007, -1/+7Sounds like more:
"I voted for the war, before I voted against the war."
and "That depends on what YOUR definition of is is." - Gadren, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6It would be great if, before a Senator was allowed to vote on a bill, he or she had to pass a written test about the bill, and, if not, the Senator had to be placed into a room to read the bill until he or she can pass the test.
- pwallroth, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Everyone knows that Senators can't read.
- Oracle95, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5So how do these Senators know that they were lied to if they never read the reports in the first place or listened to the speeches? Seems to me that's another form of lying.
- Grumps, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Thats when you have stupid Senator in office, whom doesnt use their brain and sign every donkey paper they get on their desk. Even for a war. The blood is on their hands.
Some who lied about how safe Baghdad is.
Politics is a no brainer now. You just have to get popular and find someone to make you some real fancy signature and you're in to spoil the Free World. - Durinthal, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Force every member of the Senate (or House) into the chamber where someone (let's say the bill's sponsors) has to read the full text of the bill out loud to everyone. Each person gets a full copy in front of them if they want to follow along. They aren't allowed to leave until it is read in its entirety, and they aren't allowed to vote on it until a week after that.
Or, more amusingly, you could have each senator read a paragraph from it to the entire group, just like in grade school. - M4tt3r, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6@Entropy
I agree with you that they need to be simpler, with out a doubt. I just wanted to clear this up though- the Read the Bills Act, would make "Every member of the House and Senate must sign a sworn affidavit, under penalty of perjury, that he or she has attentively either personally read, or heard read, the complete bill to be voted on."
How can anyone possibly be against that?
"I just don't think it's constitutional to tell some member of congress he or she can't vote."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_voting_rights
The constitution does not protect the government, it tells the government what it can not take from the people. So from my understanding, using the constitution is not applicable in this case.
Read the Bill (irony?). It says if they don't read the bill that they are voting on and supposedly representing the people for, (“No Legislation without representation.”) then they can be held under penalty of perjury.
I'm not putting words into your mouth, but are you saying "it's OK for them to pass bills without reading them"? - FLUX, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6she is a liar or a moron either way we don't need her as President
I wonder what her definition of the word read is - swrostmore, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6lol
- dreepa, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4This won't work on a federal level... but for state level.
www.freestateproject.org and it is working.
***
For the federal level DownsizeDc is the answer.
www.downsizedc.org - JebBlack, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Hillary is a neo-con scumbag!
- RichStradler, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5So in other words the... "it's not my fault I didn't read the memo!' excuse actually works in this job?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3http://viewfromarizona.typepad.com/citrus/colin_powell.jpg
-
Show 51 - 100 of 123 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 