congressional contempt

Read the damn bills?

When this idea came up for a poll among a political discussion I was having, it was actually broadly popular (though as noted, it was most supported by conservatives). I disagreed with the idea of "forcing" legislators to read bills. Not because it wouldn't create simpler laws as outlined, but because it probably wouldn't have this effect. Even when they do read "bad laws" they can still vote for them is more my problem. It only slows down the process of passing laws generally, it has no real effect on how useful they really are. Maybe having fewer laws would occasionally be beneficial. The second and more important reasoning was that they usually have plenty of time in the Senate anyway to revise, amend, or "fix" the bills. It's the House versions that can be raced through because of the rules of the Congress. But all the additional time does, and this is a common complaint of the Senate, is allow MORE complexity or lobbying into the bill rather than less.

My contention is sort of like objecting to some of the legislation with the idea that we're already getting about as good a product as we can get and it's not satisfactory. The idea that somehow we would improve the quality of content by having it written by the legislators into something like plain English by providing sufficient time to read the bills is laughable because it does not alter the circumstances surrounding the construction of bills. It would be a simple matter to continue to vote for these goofy pieces of legislation including the air-dropped waivers as a normal matter rather than their obscurity they today enjoy and no major changes would necessarily evolve except that fewer laws would be passed. This may be a desirable effect, and in fact underscores the reason that conservatives tend to favor the idea more so, but it is not a satisfactory change in and of itself where there remain challenges or state emergencies that only Congressional law can mandate changes (which on occasion, they do).