Senate Approves the ______Act Of____ 571
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently the Senate was in such a rush to get out of town that it forgot to name an 'important' bill that it passed, so the bill goes to the House as The ______Act of____. That's how it appears in the Congressional Record, though the Library of Congress has it listed as The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX. As for what's in the bill, well that appears to be as mysterious as the name. It was officially announced as a bill to tax bonuses to execs who received TARP money. But then someone simply deleted the entire bill and replaced it with text about aviation security. And then it was deleted again, and replaced with something having to do with education. However, because of these constant changes, many of the services that track the bill have the old details listed. On top of that, Nancy Pelosi called the House back for an emergency vote on this unnamed bill, and anyone trying to find out what it's about might be misled into thinking its about aviation security or something entirely unrelated to the actual bill. And people wonder why no one trusts Congress." It appears that the government's new martial law plans are being passed after all.
o rly? (Score:3, Funny)
At this point, why don't they just write (or print) these things with dissappearing ink? It's not like they look at it again once it gets voted on.
"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed ::insert random bill::"
"What the hell are you talking about?"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Disappearing ink is used for Ethic's rules.I heard it also is used with campaign promises and that check in the mail.
Congress has long been like this, they just haven't been so cavalier about it. When one party leads the Congress and the Presidency the American people will get the shaft. The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.
So the people are left with one choice, the ballot box. Hopef
Re:o rly? (Score:4, Insightful)
The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.
Well thank God Fox News is finally off the air... wait, what?
Partisan politics is immature bigotry. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Partisan politics is immature bigotry. (Score:4, Funny)
Forget about a "change we can believe in" and try a little "I can see November from my house" instead.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry, did you just spout "birther" nonsense to me?
If you doubt Obama's citizenship there is a 98% likelihood that you are a hopeless idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
What? Not a day goes by that I don't see something in the mainstream media bitching about what Congress is or isn't doing.
I think you may have selective sight, hearing, and/or reading skills.
Re:o rly? (Score:5, Insightful)
When one party leads the Congress and the Presidency the American people will get the shaft.
Agreed.
The real problem now is that instead of the press harping on every thing the Congress and Presidency did while under Republicans they have suddenly clammed up.
I guess that depends on what "press" you're listening to.
I was shocked and appalled at how much the Bush administration got away with. It didn't seem like anybody was holding them accountable. Sure, there was some noise about this or that... Primarily on the "liberal" channels like MSNBC... But nothing of any substance at all.
These days the "liberal" channels don't seem all that concerned about what Obama is doing. The "conservative" channels like Fox News, however, are plenty noisy. And you still get the occasional complaint out of someone on MSNBC that Obama isn't being "liberal" enough. But again it's still just noise with no substance at all.
Nobody is holding any of these folks accountable for their actions. It doesn't matter if there's a D or an R next to the name, they're all lying through their teeth and getting away with it.
Not even the usual campaign promise white lies either... Straight-up, stupidly blatant stuff like saying "I support this" on Monday, and then claiming on Tuesday that you never said you supported anything, even while the tape rolls on-screen. And nobody cares!
Re:o rly? (Score:5, Insightful)
And nobody cares!
Honestly, the best reporting on this type of stupidity is "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart." It's a shame that a news program whose explicitly stated goal is humor is the only outlet reporting this stuff.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd say it's a problem when your satirical news has more substance and information than the real news... But it's so damn funny.
Re:o rly? (Score:5, Insightful)
Humour is one of the safest ways to report the truth.
The comedians are the last ones to go before protest and news goes entirely underground.
Serious people aren't too hard to shut down. Those that appear unserious, are much harder. When they actually shut down the satire, your society is a few breaths away from actual insurrection.
Re:o rly? (Score:4, Insightful)
And nobody cares!
And there is the real problem.
It's hard to really blame the politician when the people just plain don't care or aren't interested enough to really find out what someone really stands for (if anything).
Not that I'll defend said politician, of course. Wrong behavior is wrong :)
What is the Community Reinvestment Act? (Score:5, Informative)
Clinton called for making mortgages more readily available, and signed what, exactly? Let's at least be honest about what Clinton's changes to the Community Reinvestment Act [wikipedia.org] actually did. From the wiki page:
In July 1993, President Bill Clinton asked regulators to reform the CRA in order to make examinations more consistent, clarify performance standards, and reduce cost and compliance burden.[55] Robert Rubin, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, under President Clinton, explained that this was in line with President Clinton's strategy to "deal with the problems of the inner city and distressed rural communities". Discussing the reasons for the Clinton administration's proposal to strengthen the CRA and further reduce red-lining, Lloyd Bentsen, Secretary of the Treasury at that time, affirmed his belief that availability of credit should not depend on where a person lives, "The only thing that ought to matter on a loan application is whether or not you can pay it back, not where you live." Bentsen said that the proposed changes would "make it easier for lenders to show how they're complying with the Community Reinvestment Act", and "cut back a lot of the paperwork and the cost on small business loans".[36]
By early 1995, the proposed CRA regulations were substantially revised to address criticisms that the regulations, and the agencies' implementation of them through the examination process to date, were too process-oriented, burdensome, and not sufficiently focused on actual results.[56] The CRA examination process itself was reformed to incorporate the pending changes.[40] Information about banking institutions' CRA ratings was made available via web page for public review as well.[36] The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) also moved to revise its regulation structure allowing lenders subject to the CRA to claim community development loan credits for loans made to help finance the environmental cleanup or redevelopment of industrial sites when it was part of an effort to revitalize the low- and moderate-income community where the site was located.[57]
It should be noted that compliance with the CRA is entirely voluntary, if you don't want the tasty government tax credits, don't comply. The idea that Clinton somehow brought on the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to lend to poor people is simply ludicrous.
Re:What is the Community Reinvestment Act? (Score:4, Interesting)
"The idea that Clinton somehow brought on the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to lend to poor people is simply ludicrous."
You are correct, strictly speaking. However, it was done with the blessing of top leaders of the Democratic party. Here is a transcript of Barney Frank's speech before an assembly to amend the regulation of the Fannie and Freddie funds, this measure was rammed through Congress with the objections of the Bush Administration The measure went through the Democratically-controlled house regardless: Frank Speech [taxfoundation.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a second, that link is for a Frank speech in 2003, from a hearing on an administration proposal to change the CRA. It says so in the first sentence!
So, in 2003, you are claiming that Bush objected to a Bush administration proposal?
Re:What is the Community Reinvestment Act? (Score:4, Informative)
The idea that Clinton somehow brought on the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to lend to poor people is simply ludicrous.
It's amazing how Republicans keep spouting that completely ignoring that Clinton neither suggested nor mandated ANY of the lending practices that lead to the collapse. Had the banks done what Clinton wanted and made it a bit easier for less well off people to buy a STARTER HOME (not a McMansion) at a decent rate, there would never have been a problem. Nowhere did Clinton mandate the outrageous balloon payments or the big lies mortgage brokers told financially naive people. Nothing in his guidelines required doing any of those scummy things in order to comply (with a voluntary program).
All of that crap happened primarily on Bush's watch and he did nothing about it until it blew up. Then he handed the banks a big wad of cash as a reward for their corruption.
It's a good thing for Clinton that Obama won, otherwise he'd still be getting the blame for current events on through the mid 21st century.
Re:What is the Community Reinvestment Act? (Score:5, Insightful)
"What's funny is that the mortgage industry and derivative trading schemes that caused the implosion were mostly passed by a Republican congress and Democratic president... "
"The idea that Clinton somehow brought on the mortgage crisis by forcing banks to lend to poor people is simply ludicrous."
The financial crisis brought about by mortgage fraud and securities manipulation was brought on by the cumulative actions of several Administrations and Congresses. It is not a simple as CRA, but fundamentally goes back to repealing Glass-Steagell and the S&L scandals.
To try and pin it on one party or President is misguided, and misses the salient points; that our government permitted unsound and failing financial regulation to be enacted, that the financial industry saw th opportunity to profit from it without concern for their inevitable failure, and that much of that process was driven by a huge segment of the financial industry that sponsored or committed criminal fruad on several different levels, and has not yet faced judgment. Indeed, they played the gambit that we would bail them out, if the problem got too big, and we did.
Until we see many (thousands) of financiers, analysts, executives, brokers, and other agents do the perp walk, we are not done fully undestanding the cause and prevention of this sort of problem. CRA was just a part of this. Glass-Steagell was the precipitator of this chain of events. The S&L scandals predated and predicted this, and another attempt to do the same favor for the credit unions should be expected. The NCUA has so far been able to refuse the Congress' largesse.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CRA did not force any banks to make dodgy loans. It simply asked banks to be colour blind when evaluating loan applications.
The whole mortgage melt down was caused by greed, lying to applicants to get them to take on mortgages they could not afford, then repackaging these bad mortgages as financial instruments that the raters (moodys etc..) rated triple A when they were junk and reselling them thus taking the risk away from the banks that made the bad loans. A lack of regulation allowed investment fi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The reason for this is that our country, during the course of the last 18 years or so, has been falling deeper and deeper into what I'll call a "strong presidency" structure.
Congress is nothing short of a glorified presidential sock puppet now. The House are a bunch of feckless weaklings and the Senate are a bunch of self serving check writers. They do his bidding. They might throw a few curve balls with confirmations, but overall, they serve at the leisure of the president. He says jump, and they do so wit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:o rly? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you want a change by all means vote out your incumbent congress-critter. But please acknowledge you're not going to get a change with someone who has a D or and R next to his or her name. Try something different with an L or a G or even an I.
Re:o rly? (Score:4, Funny)
Perhaps it was this bill? http://www.theonion.com/video/proposed-classified-bill-will-defend-against-flesh,14175/ [theonion.com]
Re:o rly? (Score:5, Funny)
"It's not like they look at it again once it gets voted on."
Again?
You are not seriously implying that you think they read it even once?
Re: (Score:2)
"Wait, we aren't supposed to do this...isn't this against the law since we passed ::insert random bill::"
No no no- you don't understand how government works. Since Congress is the one writing laws, it can't actually break them (as a group through passing legislation, that is. Individually, they can and do break all sorts of laws; ethics violations are quite separate).
Congress is only limited by the constitution, though it requires the judicial to rein in an overstepping legislature. When congress writes a law that conflicts with another it's still up to a judge to determine where and how to resolve them if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Although originally, I would think that it's laziness, if it's this easy for them to have a template for a bill, why don't they do something to make it easily trackable when people are making changes (version tracking)?
Re:o rly? (Score:4, Interesting)
Congress cannot constrain its own future actions (at least, not without a constitutional amendment). That's a general principle of all legislative bodies. Otherwise Republicans would pass laws making universal health care illegal, and Democrats would pass laws making unions untouchable.
So no, strictly speaking congress doesn't have to read their own laws. They can pass as many conflicting laws as they want. It's the executive and judicial branches that are responsible for reading and interpreting.
Bureaucracy (Score:3, Insightful)
When the system for legislation gets so confusing that not even the people passing the bills can keep it straight, I think it shows that there is some fundamental flaw in the system, or it didn't scale well or something.
Do we have to go back to Schoolhouse Rock?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm just a bill.
Yes, I'm only a bill.
And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.
Re:Bureaucracy (Score:4, Funny)
I'm just a ______
Yes, I'm ____ a ___.
And I'm _______ here on _______ ____.
Re:Bureaucracy (Score:5, Interesting)
When the system for legislation gets so confusing that not even the people passing the bills can keep it straight, I think it shows that there is some fundamental flaw in the system, or it didn't scale well or something.
Do we have to go back to Schoolhouse Rock?
There's an easy fix for this. Make the following change to the Constitution:
Each year, before any new law can be created or any existing law modified, the Speaker of the House must first read aloud every last federal law on the books while all other members of Congress listen. If that takes more than one year (and the federal tax code alone would easily do so) then Congress is allowed only to repeal existing laws the following year. The next year after that, the reading aloud begins again and only if completed within one year can a new law be passed or an old law modified.
Re:Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
What we need is a body of the Legislature whose sole job is to eliminate obsolete, obscure, and unclear laws.
Since their job would be the opposite of that of Congress, I suggest a name that is equally opposite.
"Pro" is the opposite of "Con".
Therefore, I suggest we call the new body "Progress".
Re:Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
There already is such an institution: it's called Supreme Court.
Or maybe there isn't. It's hard to tell these days.
Re:Bureaucracy (Score:5, Insightful)
That's judicial activism, don't you know.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There's already a "Progressive" political term and it is synonymous with exactly the opposite of what you propose. Current government progress seems to be about passing as many bills and laws as possible.
But then you still run in to the problems (Score:3, Insightful)
What do they collect it from and so on? While the tax might be fixed, with regards to the economy, the specifics would be highly fluid.
So Evil Fascist Republican A gets elected, puts his people in the IRS. He tells them "No taxing business at all, I want this all taken from income, and it has to be at a fixed rate." So the poorer people end up getting hit hard, they have a 20% tax, or whatever, same as everyone else. Businesses get hit with no taxes of any kind.
Then Loony Commie Democrat B gets elected and
A way to do it better? (Score:5, Insightful)
When the system for legislation gets so confusing that not even the people passing the bills can keep it straight, I think it shows that there is some fundamental flaw in the system, or it didn't scale well or something.
Do we have to go back to Schoolhouse Rock?
I've been looking at the constitutions of other countries, past and present, and ironically, I think the best solution to this was actually included in the Confederate constitution during the Civil War. They banned the practice of sneaking in pet projects on the back of a bigger ones:
"Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title."
Keeping legislation to one topic both simplifies the process and eliminates logrolling, at least outright. If we were to vote on a new round of amendments to the Constitution, this would be near the top of my list. I'm so tired of reading about a slew of pet projects on the back of a bill completely unrelated to the subject... things like grants for local agencies tucked into a defense bill.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
No One Trusts Them (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No one votes FOR a candidate, everyone votes AGAINST the "other guy". That's the only way to explain Pelosi, Obama, Bush, Hatch, Stevens...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No One Trusts Them (Score:5, Funny)
I voted Cthulhu, if you have to vote for evil, who choose the lesser?
Very simple explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
It works very much like public schools. People will bemoan the fact that schools are not doing well, except the school their child attends.
The same logic is used when voting for the incumbent. Congress is awful, but not my Congressman.
We won't get these guys out until our political process is open to everyone fairly. As it stands now it is near impossible to get a non Democratic or non Republican elected. They can redistrict that possibility out. If they cannot do that way they will make your source of campaign funding illegal, or you method of distributing your message.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you assume adding a third party will improve things? Political systems get more retarded as the population increases, not as the number of parties decreases. In all honesty, when you consider the primary election system, you yanks have a lot more variation in opinion at election time than we do up in Canada. And after election, your Congress is like a herd of cats, everyone has their own opinion and turf to defend. Honestly, you have too much political choice and opinion, as far as I can tell. With s
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ugh! (Score:4, Funny)
If the Zombies are after brains, they should steer clear of Washington, D.C.
Any objections? (Score:2, Insightful)
At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent? Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm all in favor of a "Recall them All" option every election. Which if it wins, all INCOMBENTS are summarily fired and forbidden from holding any elected office (everywhere) or position in any firm that Lobbies Congress.
It is high time the elites in DC learn that we're sick to death of the crap they feed us, but refuse to eat themselves. If it is so good for me and mine, why the hell are you exempted? HUH?
By the way, when was the last time you read the entire Declaration of Independence? THE WHOLE THING? I
Re:Any objections? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like you need a refresher yourself. It wasn't about the question of federalism- that came later on. The Declaration was about a lack of self determination.
The problem with all these stupid calls to read the Declaration and Constitution is teabaggers seem to equate unelected tyranny with LOSING THE ELECTION BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FUCKING MINORITY.
Re:Any objections? (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican voters, certainly. I'd think Dr. Paul's libertarian followers should have left shortly after the idiots hijacked his populist movement and turned it into the pointless anti-Obama mob it has become.
I don't think the current teabaggers are not embarrassed at all about Bush. These guys aren't moderates- they're the die-hards. They're the undoubting sheep who can't see any fault with Republicans past or present, no matter how Bachmann-esque. Sure- they don't yearn for Bush as much as they yearn for Regan, but I think that's a matter of charisma and nostalgia. They're content with the current wars, "trickle-down economics", and complete deregulation- all Bush policies. They love the idea of Palin running things, so how could they possibly believe 43 was the lousy president he was?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Any objections? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know how every single incumbent is voting. I'm sure there are principled, effective congresspeople; voting all of them out would seem overly drastic.
Certainly a large influx of "freshmen" to the halls of congress couldn't make matters any worse.
Had something similar to that happen with the Republican revolution in the 90's. I seem to remember it making matter much worse.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how every single incumbent is voting. I'm sure there are principled, effective congresspeople; voting all of them out would seem overly drastic.
Given the current Congress I'd be willing to accept the collateral damage of losing a few principled congress critters if it succeeds in ousting the majority of corrupt useless ones we seem to be saddled with.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sorry, What?? (Score:5, Insightful)
the Democrats in the House, Senate, and White House have radically changed the landscape, and not for anyone's long-term benefit.
If you accept that the massive influx of government spending is the proper response to a dead economy (I do), and that it is temporary (god I hope so), what specifically are you referring to? The healthcare bill got watered down to the point where all it did was set up a competitive price exchange for healthcare... sort of the Amazon.com of getting sick. They changed student loans to be a bit more fair, and expanded Pell grants for needy students. They passed an act where if your landlord gets foreclosed upon but you have a lease, your lease survives. And if you don't have a lease, you have 3 months to find a new place. They passed a few credit-card acts counteracting some of the more egregious offences, and giving business owners some rights. They passed a toothless wall-street reform act.
What bills, specifically, are you referring to? I'm not asking facetiously. I know we tend to filter news through our own perceptions, and I wonder what I missed.
And saying this is as bad as Bush II is going too far. We're not stuck in any new intractable wars, we haven't lost all of our allies, and we haven't had any new worldwide economic collapses.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't speak for the original poster. But I disagree with pretty much everything you said so strongly that I couldn't resist putting in my $0.02.
If you accept that the massive influx of government spending is the proper response to a dead economy (I do),
I don't. Massive government spending turned a minor little recession into the Great Depression. It's never helped, and it never will. Central planning the Keynesians love so much has failed time and again.
If something doesn't work, the answer is not to do more of the same thing. Get the government out of the way and let the free market work. (And, no, we have
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "peace and prosperity" of the 1990s was not the result of anything Clinton did. In fact, the assertions are actually false.
It wasn't unprecedentedly peaceful. During Clinton's term (not even the full 1990s), there were more military actions than there were from 2000-2010. If you're going by number of sanctioned actions, the 1930s were the most peaceful (only three - related - actions, in China).
From the start of Clinton's presidency in 1993 - right off the fucking bat - he starts throwing stones at the
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Joe Leiberman votes his conscience as well.
And to be honest, pretty much all hard-line lefties and righties vote their principals also, it's just those principals are scary as shit.
It's the flip-floppers who disgust me, and I'm not talking about those who hold a position and then realize they've been wrong. I'm talking about those who vote in the direction of the political wind, or who seem to only stand up for their principals when it gets their name in the cable news spotlight for a few days.
Still, I'm s
Re:Any objections? (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, I find Ron Paul an incredibly principled and honest politician, though if I don't want him near any position of real power in this country because I know he probably will follow through on his disastrous campaign promises.
Re:Any objections? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're pegging the value of the currency to something that has little connection to the economy as a whole; should the value of people's savings be based on how much shiny metal someone else managed to find in the earth this month?
can't be printed so they would end all the keynesian nonsense that ruled supreme for the last 100 years
You mean the 100 years which saw the greatest number of people lifted out of pov
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, I am not worried about incumbents as much as I am the lack of constitutionally empowered oversight of the legislative branch by the people.
There is nothing in the constitution about us (the people) changing the way senators are selected, or changing the rules by which the senate operates, which means that to do so would require a constitutional amendment. This, of course, requires a *two-thirds* majority vote by the Senate, and to change that requirement, of course, requires a constitutional
Re:Any objections? (Score:4, Funny)
Well, since all you are doing is complaining, yes I object.
You offer no detailed plan, you aren't even running yourself for any of these offices.
There ARE elected representatives that actually do know what they are doing, and would be a shining example of that rare specimen of 'statesman'. But since you are too ignorant to know about them, as they don't represent your backwoods bunker, might as well throw them out too?
Get a grip on reality, more specifically, that your personal experiences don't transfer to every other citizen of this country. Worry about your OWN elected officials, and stop overlaying your miserable experiences with others just because they are similar in that they are 'elected officials'.
Thats what you get with interns (Score:3, Insightful)
More than likely an intern was getting the paperwork in, not trained, under paid, wanting to get out the to bar to meet the gang. Ah, government by the staff.
Digress (Score:2)
One step progress
Two steps congress
Is it possible (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it possible (Score:5, Insightful)
Well (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually read the bill you'll realize that it contains $100 billion for spending on "education", clauses to let States governments go suck at the TARP nipple (shocking huh? Whatever happened to green jobs, etc that were promised?), new taxes for foreigners doing business in the US, foreign companies doing business in the US, and US citizens previously entitled to tax credits from living abroad, and well over $1 trillion worth of rescinded spending (presumably to get money to give to the State governments). There are other details, obviously.
Re:Well (Score:4, Interesting)
new taxes for foreigners doing business in the US, foreign companies doing business in the US, and US citizens previously entitled to tax credits from living abroad, and well over $1 trillion worth of rescinded spending (presumably to get money to give to the State governments). There are other details, obviously.
And you should be thrilled about this. The House is now operating under PAYGO rules, which means that any new spending has to be offset by budget cuts or tax increases elsewhere.
According to the CBO, if we manage to stick with PAYGO discipline, our debt will stabilize (i.e., the country will not fucking die). During the 2001-2008 we did not have PAYGO in force. As a result, we did horrendous, possibly permanent damage to the nation's finances.
Let's pray that we don't go back to those days.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And you should be thrilled about this. The House is now operating under PAYGO rules, which means that any new spending has to be offset by budget cuts or tax increases elsewhere.
I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said. William F. Buckley, Jr
Blame the lobbyists... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Blame the lobbyists... (Score:4, Insightful)
The country is sick, and you want to blame the snot coming out your nose?
Lobbyists aren't the problem: they're a symptom.
Not a bad idea in general (Score:3, Funny)
It could save a lot of time if they would just pass the executive branch a few blank legislations to be filled in later.
There isn't anything in the constitution prohibiting it, is there? Of course, you could not apply it ex post facto to dates before the blanks were filled in and so on.
Re:Not a bad idea in general (Score:4, Informative)
you jest, but that's essentially what congress has been doing for a long time. The health care bill essentially said "all these things will happen by this date" without detailing how they would happen. All of the details were handed over to HHS to work out on their own. Basically it was so vague (deliberately so) that the real effects won't be known until after HHS finishes figuring out how to implement it.
Re:Not a bad idea in general (Score:4, Informative)
Tax bills can't originate in the Senate (Score:5, Informative)
If it is a bill to tax executive bonuses from TARP-receiving companies, then the Constitution says that it must originate in the House, not the Senate, but I suppose that detail is ignored.
Shh! Dammit! (Score:2, Funny)
My plan to have Congress name me king and eternal diety has come to fruition and you're ruining it!
How a Bill Becomes a Law (Score:2)
Get a grip (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, guys. A clerk somewhere screwed up, and probably needs to be fired. However, it's a pretty far cry from martial law.
Yup (Score:2)
I think they were kidding about that.
Exactly. Your first clue is the Onion citation.
OMG (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It is not an error. Repeat, it is not an error. This bill is indeed about censoring the obscene language in XXXX lager commercials.
I may not be fully awake yet (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Wax expectations always seem to melt away once you become more familiar with the subject.
Seriously? (Score:2)
Please, someone tell me this is a sick ill-timed April Fool's joke. You Have Got To Be Fucking Kidding Me.
Here's what I'd like to see. (Score:5, Interesting)
All bills should be written on a wiki-like system that is publicly viewable, along with all previous versions of the bill and which member of Congress made which changes.
Congress' Response (Score:2)
A new way! (Score:5, Funny)
I think this could set a new precedent of how things are done in Congress. A far more efficient way. Our reps and senators could get together to vote for an unnamed and unspecified bill. Various congressmen could stand up and speak to the issues that are most important to their constituency and party. Republicans can argue about how the bill is a hand-out sponsored by the democrats and that we all just need to have some personal responsibility. The democrats could argue about how this is required to protect the children/poor/minorities. Once all the grand standing is completed and the various pork riders attached, it will be voted on. Once approved it can then be forwarded to the various lobbyists to fill in the blanks. It would be something like a blank check but a more democratic version. The details never mattered anyways.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this could set a new precedent of how things are done in Congress. A far more efficient way. Our reps and senators could get together to vote for an unnamed and unspecified bill. Various congressmen could stand up and speak to the issues that are most important to their constituency and party. Republicans can argue about how the bill is a hand-out sponsored by the democrats and that we all just need to have some personal responsibility. The democrats could argue about how this is required to protect the children/poor/minorities. Once all the grand standing is completed and the various pork riders attached, it will be voted on. Once approved it can then be forwarded to the various lobbyists to fill in the blanks. It would be something like a blank check but a more democratic version. The details never mattered anyways.
If only that was different than how they do things now. The depressing thing is that while I laughed through your post, I realized that your hypothetical anecdote is exactly the political status quo. Funny thing how we use laughter to cope with tragedy...
I think I hard about this one before. (Score:2)
Doesn't it have something to do with martial law and an outbreak of flesh-eating classified something or other?
Seriously, this reads like an Onion story.
The DROP TABLE bill; Act of DROP TABLE senate; (Score:3, Funny)
.
Let me fix a completely wrong summary. (Score:5, Informative)
You'd think there might be a political agenda.
Luckily this is old news and information is already out there.
Yes there appeared to be a last minute decision to replace the text of HR. 1586 with the contents of what will eventually become known as the "State Bailout Bill". Apparently there was a need to replace the contents of the "FAA Modernization Bill" with this emergency spending bill. Possibly the senators figured out that the fastest way to get this to the President's desk was to amend the last house passed bill to replace its contents, and then have the house reconvene to approve the change. No big conspiracy here, but some comical fodder about forgetting to put the final name of the bill into the text.
No one did such thing, That's amendment S.AMDT.3486 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Schumer, Charles E. [NY] (introduced 3/11/2010)
See my explanation above, and this was not "deleted again". By the way the amendment is S.AMDT.4575 to HR. 1586 Sponsor: Sen Murray, Patty [WA] (submitted 8/2/2010) (proposed 8/2/2010)
With the summary so full of political hyperbole, I can see why the submitter remained anonymous. The fact that the article actually provides the PDF of the congressional record proves that the submitter is completely wrong with his assertions.
This supposed conspiracy doesn't rise to the level of the shenanigans that the Republicans performed when they passed the "Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999" that Clinton signed into law. It was that bill ultimately got us in the sad shape we are in now...
Lately this phrase keeps coming to mind... (Score:5, Insightful)
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
~ George Orwell
Obligatory Futurama Quote (Score:3, Funny)
From Hermes: "Sweet something of someplace!"
Re:We are blessed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Short memory. The curse of the American people...
Re: (Score:3)
Re:You have to pass it to find out what's in it (Score:5, Insightful)
As Nancy Pelosi said of Obamacare "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." What she means is that nobody could learn what was in the bill by reading it.
Here's the full quote [speaker.gov]:
But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.
It seems more likely to me that she meant that all of the nonsense spouted by the extreme right (death panels and whatnot) made it impossible to have a reasonable discussion on what the bill was about. And that once it was passed all of that FUD would probably stop dominating the news so that the real information wouldn't be obscured anymore.