5 ms·

Bad as this provision is in itself, even worse is the broader idea that such items should be "slipped in" to omnibus statutes that are so indecipherable that no

by grellas 17y ago

Bad as this provision is in itself, even worse is the broader idea that such items should be "slipped in" to omnibus statutes that are so indecipherable that no reasonable legislator or member of the public can know all that is in it before it becomes law. It is indecent that such items should pass and get signed into law without meaningful debate as to their implications and without any form of public scrutiny whatever. In the meantime, we the taxpayers are stuck with the consequences.

soundsop 17y ago
It is amazing to me how many critical aspects of an open democracy are dependent on rules of house/congress/parliament. This sort of unrelated/obfuscated clause insertion and the 60-vote requirement to defeat a filibuster are two prime examples. Will there have to be constitutional amendments saying1) bills must be clear and address only one topic, and 2) simple majorities shall always rule, expect in pre-specified cases, and no parliamentary rules shall override simple majority in letter or in spirit.
- koanarc 17y ago
  So Congress can't be trusted to pass simple bills, but they should be trusted to amend the Constitution?
  - pyre 17y ago
    Hey! Prohibition wasn't that bad...
  - jerf 17y ago
    My goodness, could you imagine it? The entire Bill of Rights would fit in the preamble of Amendment 28... quite possibly the entire Constitution as amended. (Because we all know Congress isn't serious about something unless it produces a bill measured in thousands of pages... and stop questioning their wisdom in creating such bills, you ignorant plebes.)
- ubernostrum 17y ago
  Will there have to be constitutional amendments saying1) bills must be clear and address only one topic Random historical tidbit: the Constitution of the Confederacy (for non-Americans: the Southern states which seceded during our civil war) had this requirement built in (one subject per bill, and the subject must be clearly stated). It also had a line-item veto, and placed strict limits on federal spending. Of course, it also had text permanently establishing slavery...
  - fnid2 17y ago
    They should have line-item vetoed that slavery bit and moved forward.
koanarc 17y ago
Spot on. When was the last time you felt represented?
- fnid2 17y ago
  As an entrepreneur who can start his business in many countries around the world, I'm wondering why on earth, literally, I would want to start another one in the U.S. I don't go into business to fill out paperwork and keep track of ridiculous crap like this. I go into business to generate revenue and make the lives of my customers and others around me better. This kind of law makes my life worse. Perhaps they want fewer businesses to compete with their big corporate donors. This year, on the IRS tax form, where it says, "I attest under penalty of law that this information is true and correct [or whatever]." Well.. I can't actually sign that because it's impossible for me to know what I can deduct, what I can't, what I should report, etc... If the IRS wants my money, let them come and get it. I just refuse to put up with this crap anymore. It's absurd. This is why civilizations crumble.
  - xenophanes 17y ago
    Aren't most countries just as bad with govt bureaucracy? Which do you have in mind as way better?
    - tocomment 17y ago
      I'd love to see a list with all the countries ranked on everything you could want to know. I have no idea how to comparison shop right now.
      - chasingsparks 17y ago
        The economic freedom of the world reports by the Fraiser institute provide rankings based on things like costs of tax compliance, respect for contracts, legal systems, etc. The country tables can be found at: http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/reports/world/EFW2009_ch4.pdf http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/reports/world/EFW2009_ch4.p... All chapters, including collection methodology can be found: http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html
sabat 17y ago
I've often wondered if there wasn't some way to make it illegal to create riders on bills. I realize we're talking about lawyers, but not even a lawyer could realistically claim that this 1099 crap has anything to do with health care. It should automatically be thrown out, and the person responsible for slipping it in should be automatically barred from penning legislation.

by grellas 17y ago

soundsop 17y ago

It is amazing to me how many critical aspects of an open democracy are dependent on rules of house/congress/parliament. This sort of unrelated/obfuscated clause insertion and the 60-vote requirement to defeat a filibuster are two prime examples. Will there have to be constitutional amendments saying1) bills must be clear and address only one topic, and 2) simple majorities shall always rule, expect in pre-specified cases, and no parliamentary rules shall override simple majority in letter or in spirit.

koanarc 17y ago
So Congress can't be trusted to pass simple bills, but they should be trusted to amend the Constitution?
- pyre 17y ago
  Hey! Prohibition wasn't that bad...
- jerf 17y ago
  My goodness, could you imagine it? The entire Bill of Rights would fit in the preamble of Amendment 28... quite possibly the entire Constitution as amended. (Because we all know Congress isn't serious about something unless it produces a bill measured in thousands of pages... and stop questioning their wisdom in creating such bills, you ignorant plebes.)
ubernostrum 17y ago
Will there have to be constitutional amendments saying1) bills must be clear and address only one topic Random historical tidbit: the Constitution of the Confederacy (for non-Americans: the Southern states which seceded during our civil war) had this requirement built in (one subject per bill, and the subject must be clearly stated). It also had a line-item veto, and placed strict limits on federal spending. Of course, it also had text permanently establishing slavery...
- fnid2 17y ago
  They should have line-item vetoed that slavery bit and moved forward.

koanarc 17y ago

Spot on. When was the last time you felt represented?

fnid2 17y ago
As an entrepreneur who can start his business in many countries around the world, I'm wondering why on earth, literally, I would want to start another one in the U.S. I don't go into business to fill out paperwork and keep track of ridiculous crap like this. I go into business to generate revenue and make the lives of my customers and others around me better. This kind of law makes my life worse. Perhaps they want fewer businesses to compete with their big corporate donors. This year, on the IRS tax form, where it says, "I attest under penalty of law that this information is true and correct [or whatever]." Well.. I can't actually sign that because it's impossible for me to know what I can deduct, what I can't, what I should report, etc... If the IRS wants my money, let them come and get it. I just refuse to put up with this crap anymore. It's absurd. This is why civilizations crumble.
- xenophanes 17y ago
  Aren't most countries just as bad with govt bureaucracy? Which do you have in mind as way better?
  - tocomment 17y ago
    I'd love to see a list with all the countries ranked on everything you could want to know. I have no idea how to comparison shop right now.
    - chasingsparks 17y ago
      The economic freedom of the world reports by the Fraiser institute provide rankings based on things like costs of tax compliance, respect for contracts, legal systems, etc. The country tables can be found at: http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/reports/world/EFW2009_ch4.pdf http://www.freetheworld.com/2009/reports/world/EFW2009_ch4.p... All chapters, including collection methodology can be found: http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html http://www.freetheworld.com/release.html

sabat 17y ago

I've often wondered if there wasn't some way to make it illegal to create riders on bills. I realize we're talking about lawyers, but not even a lawyer could realistically claim that this 1099 crap has anything to do with health care. It should automatically be thrown out, and the person responsible for slipping it in should be automatically barred from penning legislation.