Monday, August 10, 2009

Thought for the day



Why is it that the same people who state that there's no point in reading bills that cross their desks ...

... are the same folks who accuse protesters of not understanding the health care bill?

If House Members are advised not to read the bill because they don't have two days and two lawyers on hand to explain it to them (see above video) -- how are those House Members in a position to tell anyone that the protesters don't understand the bill?

Just wondering.

LawDog

24 comments:

SpeakerTweaker said...

Zip it, 'Dawg, or I'll rat you out straight to that White House email address reserved for ratting out, eh, FOLKS LIKE YOU!

;)

I can't believe he let himself get recorded suggesting that Congress not read the bill. Two days, two lawyers my arse. How many members of Congress are lawyers? I'd be happy (as one who pays the bastards' salaries) to grant them a couple days - or weeks or months, for that matter - to get their crap together before committing to blatant socialism.

Just sayin...



tweaker

Old NFO said...

Obliviously, "they" know better than any of us. If they are lawyers and don't understand it, then we (the unwashed silent majority) can't possibly read it an understand it!

The other thing that pisses me off is accusing Veterans and old people of being a "mob" is PURE BS!!!

But don't get me started... sigh...

Jim said...

I've used the crisis in confidence in government among many libsters to ask them why, if they doubt the current commie Unca Sammy's (and his entire party's) veracity as regards healthcare, why then trust them an iota further in trusting them with their personal defense and security.

Begging forgiveness for the run-on pararagraph, but it seems to be working wonders to drop some scales from various leftist eyeballs.

That's presuming of course, that they're ill-at-ease regarding obamacare to begin with.

And speaking of the 2A, I'll excercise it to resist being drafted against my will into any erstwhile Govt. "health plan".

Goverment is to "Health Plan" is as Auschwitz is to "Spa".

Guess you gotta reports me to the "fishy" whitehouse addy now, eh?


Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX

RHT447 said...

Indeed, why read the Bill? Well, to add a small point that even Mr. J.C. can understand, because that's what we the people @$%##!! pay you to do.

HerrBGone said...

That has got to be among the lamest things I have ever heard anyone say in front of a microphone. And I’m a regular at our local town meetings, so that’s say’n something! What’s he going to do? Wait for the Cliff’s Notes to come out via MSNBC sound bites to get an idea of what the bill is supposed to be about?

I almost said “to get a sense of” – but there is so little of that in Washington today that they have none to spare, either for him or for this bill!


Word verification "taint" as in: “Yonder health care bill taint a good idea.” and/or “This administration bears the taint of Marxism.”

Digitarii said...

I think all of these politicians are Pernicious Critters anymore. Check out this page of my blog for definitions:

http://perniciousknids.blogspot.com/2009/07/professor-gates-is-pernicious-critter.html

I think my buddy Parrothead Jeff hit the nail on the head with his idea for these thousand page bills:

http://parrotheadjeff.com/blog/archives/5825/ive-been-thinking-if-they-dont-want-to-read-the-bills/

We need to put limits on the congresscritters and senatecritters like we have on the president. 2 terms and out!

Anonymous said...

I find it interesting that the one and only job these guys have is to represent their district. This includes actually reading proposed legislation and representing their district by voting. Besides servicing interns, what else do they have to do with their time? Even if your lips move when you read you should be able to work your way through it and actually DO YOUR JOB, MORON!!! T. Putz

Hill Country Blogger said...

I like read the bill act or an even better bill might state that no law may go into action on the house floor without 365 days, without addendum, before a vote can be made. Basically a bill has to sit on the floor for year before you can vote on it. Meh.....or just fire them all and hire children to do a better job

ExGeeEye said...

I personally like the idea of requiring a "10th Amendment Clause" to be included with each bill. This clause would quote the part of the Constitution which allows (yes, allows) the Congress to even consider the bill. For instance, a highway bill would quote "To establish Post Offices and post Roads" (the latter term meaning the nearest thing to a highway they had in those days). I'd also like to require that a legislator, in proposing a bill, must read it in full from the floor of the House (or Senate), to a quorum, each time it cmes up for a vote or committee assignment. Oh well-- dream on, eh?

Anonymous said...

The damn bill is over 1000 pages. Most of our legislators are lawyers. Lawyers get upwards of $300 an hour. Given the IQs of most lawyers, how long do you figure reading the bill will take? Do the math.
Ever hear of a lawyer doing freebies, especially if it's for the public's benefit?
Dreamer.
LawMom

Library-Gryffon said...

My mother's arguement for Conyers is that he's saying there's no point in reading the current version, because, what with all the ammendments, what they get to vote on won't resemble the version of HR3200 we can get from the GPO right now.

But still, we've heard enough other folks, like the eejit from NH, saying that if they actually read everything they voted on they wouldn't have time to get anything done. Which I see as a feature, not a bug!

But if they don't know what the version they're going to be voting on is, how can they say it's a good thing?

Silly me, thinking that my viewpoint is important. I'm just a "teabagger".


Word verification "inglys"
What we'll all be speaking, reading, and writing, eventually if the teachers' unions keep doing their stellar job?

P said...

Just another example of where someone is clearly hired above their ability.

Just because he marched In Selma, does not give one the tools needed to be effective politician.

His district has elected him 22 times, all based on really one days events, yet because he was there there with DMLK, he is set for life in his district, He has had numerous ethics investigations, his wife is an admitted felon in a bribery and abuse of office fight, He claims to have not known about it, but that just reeks of hanging her out to dry.


he;s dirty, filthy, and should be in jail.

X_LA_Native said...

Aside from pounding these schmucks relentlessly with emails and faxes, I'm thinking we could do much better with a draft or lottery of sorts.
Pay, say $10 to get in the pool, when your name's selected you take a test. Pass, you're in - for two years - here's a coupon for the cafeteria and a map. Fail, you get your money back.

If your last name's Byrd, Kennedy, Kerry, etc., you're disqualified. For life.

Anonymous said...

If this "Health Care" bill was good, Congress should be willing to join us in living with it for their health care needs.

The real point is, and remains that
nowhere in the Constitution is helth care enumerated as a "right"

Nowhere is government granted by the people the power to initiate a health care program. The powers granted to the federal government are very limited and narrow and it is up to us "the people" to stop this naked grab for power. I watched an interview with a woman in Britain who was afraid to express her views on British health care because they may put her at the bottom of the list for services. Chilling!!
We need less government, not more and should vote only for people who promise to start reducing the size of government and definately voting against incumbents whose only goal is to be re-elected.
Paul in Texas

Chris edwards said...

I dont suppose Hitlers ministers were reading anything the leader wanted made law either, there are a lot of voters out there(and in england) who may be so mentally challenged as to make their human status doubtful. I cannot see a peaceful way out of this (unless all supporters of O were quitley sent to camp on antartica for a while, wouldnt that improve the gene pool?)

Celeste said...

Even if one reads the bill, much of it doesn't make any sense. For example a section copied from the bill p. 347):
SEC.1172. CONTINUOUS OPEN ENROLLMENT FOR ENROLLEES IN PLANS WITH ENROLLMENT SUSPENSION.
Section 1851(3)(4) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.1395w(e)(4)) is amended
(1) in subparagraph (C), by striking at the end “or”;
(2) in subparagraph (D)—
(A) by inserting “,taking into account the health of well-being of the individual” before the period; and
(B) by redesignating such subparagraph as subparapgaph (E); and
(3) by inserting after subparagraph (C) the following new subparagraph:
“(D) the individual is enrolled in an MA plan and enrollment in the plan is suspended underparagraph (2)(B) or (3)(C) of section 1857(g) because of a failure of the plan to meet the applicable requirents; or”,

No one can interpret HR 3200 unless he/she has links to the original bills in question. Then you have to go back and insert/delete rearrange and read THAT bill as well. As someone who has actually TRIED to read and understand the bill it's impossible. This frightens me, because this sort of thing, in my opinion, creates a heck of a lot of ambiguity and makes it possible to potentially slide in things.....I am not suggesting the copied section has anything wrong. I just randomly opened the bill and found the section that referred to something else. There are lots of sections written like this, though.

Please pardon any typos. Just my two cents.

Anonymous said...

A perfect poster child for term limits!

Larry said...

"Nowhere is government granted by the people the power to initiate a health care program."

And that is the entire point! All this debate over if health care is a right or not is moot. What's pertinent is that the fed.gov has no constitutional mandate to provide it.

Anonymous said...

Could it not be argued that universal health care would count as providing for the 'general Welfare of the United States'?

Or does that phrase not include the general welfare (in its original sense of health and wellbeing) of the people of the states?

Mariah said...

Just wanted to check in that I'm reading your blog. Good post.

phlegmfatale said...

We're not supposed to worry our purty little heads about it.

PopsPhotos said...

Did anybody notice that the picture of the Capital building behind him is tilted to the LEFT? hmmmmmm

Pops

HerrBGone said...

It’s not so much 'leaning to the left' as it is a close-up amidships as the big stern section* of the House Chambers rise up into the air just before breaking off as the whole thing goes to meet Davy Jones. The pirate not the Monkey. And this with the present administration playing the roll of the iceberg. I just hope the undertow doesn’t take U.S. with it…

Now if you’ll pardon me, I have some deck chairs to rearrange…

* safe for TV edit

wuffa said...

I have seen this on both sides for the last 35 years anytime the bill gets too big.
make no never mind about whats in it. people who are going to vote on it ,should have to read it.
( much less not tell anyone they do not know whats in it { on having not read it})[how would anyone know]
LOVE your blog
Wuffa ( lives in oregon )