Well, if you're from Hawaii, one of your senators ADMITTED that it's not a good idea that he be required to read the bills before voting on it.
Through the Downsize DC website ( http://www.downsizedc.org/), I e-mailed all my Congressional representatives (Senators Daniel Inouye and Daniel Akaka, Representative Colleeen Hanabusa) on voting for "Read the Bills Act" that (gasp......omg.....noooooooh!) would require all members of Congress to read the bills before making them law.
For more info on the Read the Bills Act, check out https://secure.downsizedc.org/etp/rtba/
And this is the response I got from Senator Daniel Inouye
----------
Dear Mr Wegesend,
Thank you for your communication regarding the proposal for legislation to impose restrictions on legislative activity.
At this time, the Read the Bills Act, legislation proposed by Downsize D.C., has not been introduced in either the House or Senate. I believe Members of Congress should understand the various implications legislation may have on their constituents, as well as the United States as a whole. However, I do not believe the requirements placed on Members of Congress by this proposal are the most effective means of achieving Downsize D.C.'s goals of limiting federal spending and the size of our government.
Having each bill read aloud to a quorum of Members would consume so much time that it would hinder efforts to develop and pass legislation and meet our oversight responsibilities. Moreover, the change in procedural rules requiring publication of legislation seven days prior to a vote would prevent the Congress from addressing time-sensitive matters and hinder the amendment process.
While I am concerned with the last-minute insertion of controversial provisions in legislation, I do not support the draft Read the Bills Act. Although we do not agree on the best way to improve our legislative process, I appreciate that you took time to share your views with me.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
Aloha,
Daniel K. Inouye
United States Senator
-----
In other words, Inouye is defending corruption with all bunch of useless excuses.
Let's go over such useless excuses.
Inouye said:
Having each bill read aloud to a quorum of Members would consume so much time that it would hinder efforts to develop and pass legislation and meet our oversight responsibilities
My response:
The senators, the lobbyists and other such people have MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to write up 1,000+ pages into a law that ALL OF US ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW yet Inouye is worried about the time spent having the bill read aloud?
If Inouye is worried about how long it would take to "having each bill read aloud", then the bills are too long!
If ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, then how we do expect the average citizen to memorize 1,000 + pages of Ph.D. level vocabulary?
This shows that Inouye doesn't care about the effects of the law? He cares about just voting for whatever law that has an appealing title, just so he can brag about it come election time!
----------
Inouye said:
Moreover, the change in procedural rules requiring publication of legislation seven days prior to a vote would prevent the Congress from addressing time-sensitive matters and hinder the amendment process.
My response:
How often does Congress vote on "time-sensitive matters"?
Congress usually stall for months on various bills, giving lobbyists, activists, and legislative staff to add a whole bunch of restrictions, special favors, and other stuff to be described with Ph.D. level vocabulary, which ends up to 1,000+ pages of boring material that you can't expect the average high-school graduate to comprehend it.
After they're done with all that, they don't even give us time to understand the bill before they vote on it!
This "time-sensitive matters" nonsense is just an excuse for Inouye and his pals to corrupt the process!
This is proven when Inouye objected to "requiring publication of legislation seven days prior to a vote".
In other words, Inouye DOES NOT WANT US TO HAVE THE TIME to understand the law Congress is about to vote on! Inouye just wants to "pass the law and get it over with" before people can have time to read the laws and figure out the negative side effects of the law! In other words, Inouye wants to pass the law before people can speak out against it! Inouye is supporting tactics that would basically silence the opposition. Inouye wants us to be uninformed about the laws he is voting on before it's too late!
There's no other to interpret it: Inouye is defending corruption!
And sadly, this is normal in the US Congress. They let their staff, lobbyists, activists, etc put all kinds of junk into 1,000+ page bills that most of us obviously have no time to read! Then they refuse to let us have the time to learn about what's in the 1,000+ pages before they vote on the bill!
There's no other way to interpret it: Members of Congress want us to be UN-INFORMED citizens.
-------
Herman Cain, a former CEO who is trying to run for president has proposed that all laws be only 3 pages long.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/06/herman-cain-i-wont-sign-any-bill-more-than-three-pages-long.php
Cain said:
Don't try to pass a 2,700 page bill. And even they didn't read it! You and I didn't have time to read it. We were too busy trying to live, send our kids to school. That's why I am only going to allow small bills -- three pages. You'll have time to read that one over the dinner table.
For saying that, Cain has been ridiculed as "someone who doesn't like to read" by John Stewart and other comedians!
But look at the main point: Cain believes that bills should be something an average person can understand BEFORE Congress can vote on it! Cain wants bills so easy to understand that "You'll have time to read that one over the dinner table".
It isn't "ignorant" or "illiterate" to turned off by the idea of reading a 1,000+ page bill. Most people don't even have time to read 100+ pages a day, much less 1,000+ pages. As Cain implies, most of us are too busy working and taking care of our family to read over a 1,000+ page bill!
Many of us want to be informed citizens. But many of us have to deal with multiple distractions on a daily basis. For many of us, watching the news is the only time we have to get informed. And even then, the news isn't obligated to tell us everything. After all, they have ratings to think about!
This is why Cain and others believe in shorter bills that most of us can read or print from the internet and that we can understand it before it becomes long.
I will be a bit more lenient, and say that all bills should have a maximum of 10 pages, all typed in 12-sized font (preferably Times New Roman or other easy to read fonts).
Anything that "requires" more than 10 pages shall be divided into different sections that SHALL BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY! (In other words: Law Part 1 (10 pages), Law Part 2 (the next 10 pages) all VOTED ON SEPARATELY!
Anything more than that can EASILY BE CORRUPTED by politicians, lobbyists, activists, etc who want us to be uninformed about the bills they're trying to manipulate!
If their idea is so great, why not just keep it simple! If they can't do that, maybe their idea wasn't so great to begin with!
----------
As I mentioned earlier Members of Congress almost NEVER vote on a bill based on what's truly within the 1,000+ pages of the bill. The vote based on "does it make me look good come election time?"
So let's pretend if you're a member of Congress, and you got this 1,000+ page bill in front of you that you got to vote on! You like certain parts of the bill, but other parts you don't like! You tried to talk with the other members of Congress about it, but not enough of them were convinced. So you're voting on that bill - ALL OR NOTHING! What would you do?
You vote for it, the negative parts of the bill become law, and the side effects of that bill will be a reality that caused people to suffer, and YOU VOTED FOR IT!
But if you vote against that bill (even though you like some parts of it), your next political opponent will tell the voters you voted against this bill with a Great Sounding Title, and that you're a bad guy for it?
So what would you do? If you're like most members of Congress, whatever side effects of the law come up doesn't matter. What matters is your next election is coming up, so just vote for that 1,000+ page bill!
That's why we really should do away with 1,000+ page bills. That's why I prefer a system of each bill being only 10 pages.
Anything that "requires" more than 10 pages shall be divided into different sections that SHALL BE VOTED ON SEPARATELY! (In other words: Law Part 1 (10 pages), Law Part 2 (the next 10 pages) all VOTED ON SEPARATELY!
That way if you like Law Part 1 (the first 10 pages) but don't like Law Part 2 (second ten pages), you can vote that way a lot easier, than just vote "ALL OR NOTHING" on a 1,000+ bill!
---
STICKING TO THE SUBJECT
Coincidentally, a few days after I started a draft for this blog post, I got another letter from Senator Dan Inouye.
This time, it's about the "One Subject At a Time Act", which will make each bill being voted on to (....... omg........noh!) to just stick to one subject!
Otherwise, it will be easier for bills to stacked with laws dealing with totally different issues, and members of Congress just voting for it, ALL OR NOTHING, just based on the title of the bill!
For more info on "One Subject at a Time Act", check out http://www.downsizedc.org/osta-legislation
Here's what Inouye wrote
---
Dear Mr. Wegesend,
Thanks for your communication regarding the proposal for legislation to impose restrictions on legislative activity.
At this time, the One Subject at a Time Act, legislation proposed by Downsize D.C., has not been introduced in either the House or the Senate. I believe members of Congress should understand the various implications legislation may have on their constituents, as well as the United States as a whole. However, I do not believe the requirements placed on Members of Congress by this proposals are the most effective means of achieving Downsize D.C.'s goals of limiting federal spending and the size of our government.
I appreciate that you took the time to share your views with me. Please, be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind should similar legislation come before the full Senate for consideration.
Thank you again for sharing your thoughts on this matter.
Aloha,
Daniel K. Inouye
United States Senator
---------
Inouye said :
I do not believe the requirements placed on Members of Congress by this proposals are the most effective means of achieving Downsize D.C.'s goals of limiting federal spending and the size of our government.
Well, what is the most effective means of limiting federal spending or the size of our government? Inouye doesn't have an answer for that, because that's not a concern of his! His main concern is getting re-elected based on what sweet-titled bills he voted for, and how much taxpayer's money come back to Hawaii. Which by the way, only happens because of this "I'll vote to fund this project in your state, ONLY IF you vote to fund this project in my state that most of your voters would probably never visit in their lifetime".
No, Inouye doesn't want to stick to one subject per bill, because that reduces HIS power to manipulate the process! He wants him and his allies to put multiple issues under one 1,000+ bill without having us to understands what's in the bill!
Having us understand what's in the bills REDUCES HIS POWER!
Giving us time to understand AHEAD OF TIME of what Inouye is about to vote on, will REDUCE HIS POWER!
Having him just focus on one subject per bill will REDUCE HIS POWER!
Which is why Inouye and other members of Congress will NEVER agree to have short bills, will NEVER agree to have the bill read aloud so that there's a public audio recording (that can be on YouTube) before they vote on it, will NEVER agree to give the general public time to understand the bill before it gets voted on, and will NEVER agree to stick to one subject per bill!
While the US Constitution is great in that limited the government's power, it didn't limit it enough. The biggest flaw with the US Constitution is that it didn't require bills to be of limited length, it didn't require a 7-day notice to the public on the bill before it gets voted, and it didn't require bills to just stick to one subject!
A whole bunch of headaches could've prevented!
