15 July 2009

Bipartisan dereliction of legislative duty

That complex title refers to the observation that lawmakers (of both parties, and at both state and federal levels) pass laws without reading the bills they are voting on. This week Jeff Jacoby at Boston.com offers an incisive rant on the subject. An excerpt:
Congress frequently votes on huge and complex bills that few if any members of the House or Senate has read through. They couldn’t read them even if they wanted to, since it is not unusual for legislation to be put to a vote just hours after the text is made available to lawmakers. Congress passed the gigantic, $787 billion “stimulus’’ bill in February - the largest spending bill in history - after having had only 13 hours to master its 1,100 pages. A 300-page amendment was added to Waxman-Markey, the mammoth cap-and-trade energy bill, at 3 a.m. on the day the bill was to be voted on by the House. And that wasn’t the worst of it, as law professor Jonathan Adler of Case Western Reserve University noted in National Review Online:

“When Waxman-Markey finally hit the floor, there was no actual bill. Not one single copy of the full legislation that would, hours later, be subject to a final vote was available to members of the House. The text made available to some members of Congress still had ‘placeholders’ - blank provisions to be filled in by subsequent language.’

3 comments:

  1. While I find it mild bothersome, it is rare for a legislator to study any bill. that's what their staff and the various analysis offices (e.g. CBO) are there for. so it's somewhat disingenous to point to this one truth and say that's the whole story. The legislators are putting their efforts where they count, in committees, horse trtading and meeting constituents and yes even lobbiests. their staff is the one reading the bill.

    And frankly if I were a congressman I would too. Think about it. Are the details of the implementation important. I could not tell you if something was a good or bad method just by reading the text. I'd learn a lot more by reading opposing analyses of the bill and projections of it's outcome and efficacy. So that's where I would put my time.

    And the best bill in the world is no good if you can't pass it. bills change rapidly too.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I somewhat agree with Charlie - that's what staff is for, however I do have problems with bills with blank pages, changes written in the margins..in pencil no less, and the "fast-track" pushing of certain bills through the legislative process. It's almost as if the Democrats don't want Americans to KNOW what is passing, since if we had the opportunity to really examine some of this legislation (like the Cap and Trade Bill) we would oppose it. Imagine if Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama stood up and told America "Yes, this legislation will double your household energy costs...per year".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally, I'm all for brevity. Require any bill to be passed to fit into 20-30 pages. If it can't fit into 30 pages, it's far too complicated.

    This was the genius of our founding fathers, who wrote a constitution which has stood for over 200 years with relatively few changes. Compare and contrast this with many states constitutions, which are book-length, and have had to be completely reworked over the years.

    Keep it simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. (I know, these are lawyers we are dealing with. Lawyers who get an advantage from complex and arcane laws)

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...