Slashdot Mirror
Senate Approves the ______Act Of____
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.
But they keep voting for them.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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in the US, and US citizens previously entitled to tax credits from living abroad, and well over $1 trillion worth of rescinded spending (presumably to get money to give to the State governments).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.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
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.
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?
There is a war going on for your mind.
The world is ending, someone made a clerical error!
But for a split second there I wax expecting the Python programming language to be mentioned somewhere in there.
Perhaps it was this bill? http://www.theonion.com/video/proposed-classified-bill-will-defend-against-flesh,14175/
At this stage are there any objections to simply unseating every single encumbent?
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.
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.
Technoli
If the Zombies are after brains, they should steer clear of Washington, D.C.
"If...you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible warning" - Catherine Aird
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.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
"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?
I beg your pardon? The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX is obviously about porn! Look at all the XXX - they are obviously just very excited.
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!
"Work is the curse of the drinking classes." -Oscar Wilde
Short memory. The curse of the American people...
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
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.
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.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Considering that it passed, how is that supposed to be reassuring? If a botched bill the staff messed up came up to vote on, that's one thing. To approve of it is another. We are supposed to be happy Congress voted to pass a new law they didn't even read the title of?
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'.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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".
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Sure, if you like right-wing loon jobs.
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.
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.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Yes, it's called the "non-delegation doctrine", which follows from Article One of the US Constitution. The Supreme Court first visited the topic in Wayman v. Southard in 1825, so it is a well-established legal principle. Congress may delegate some small authority, but it has to be severely limited in scope, i.e., simple rulemaking. E.g., the EPA is allowed to determine what constitutes a "pollutant". This was the subject of a recent Court decision. The Chief Executive is also given a little leeway when it comes to national security, see Executive Orders.
I've seen a lot of this "one party control" talking point recently, but the problem is not "One Party Control" it's "Two Party Control". Voting for a Republican "in order to bring some balance" is sidestepping the problem unless you really care about banning gay marriage, abortion, stem cell research. If you care more about defense, terrorism and its laws, Iraq, Afghanistan, rampant Federal spending, Federal regulation and de-regulation, increased federal power for immigration control, the war on drugs, and the slow erosion of Citizen and Non-Citizens' rights in general, then the two parties, for all intents and purposes, are identical. They'll pull the same stunts and make the same political hay in the media no matter who's in office, who's the majority leader, or who's the minority leader because it's still the same group of people in power, the same party leaders pulling the strings.
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.
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.
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.
The ______ Agenda
There already is such an institution: it's called Supreme Court.
Or maybe there isn't. It's hard to tell these days.
http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
Intelligent folk should be above it. Both parties are broken, neither party aligns with your beliefs. Government isn't a sports game - the only real winners or losers are the people. The people of the US are giving up their independence and freedom to numbing mountains of laws and bureaucracy. They are ignorant of government spending and its resultant inflation and debt. The almighty dollar is the foundation we all stand upon and if you don't recognize the need for concern, you need to start paying attention to what our own accountants are saying - your Congressmen are not.
Gambling with monumental changes to the U.S. (and thereby the world's) economy, namely the return to a medieval commodities-based currency and abolishing the IRS and Federal Reserve, ignoring climate change, and abolishing clean air and water laws.
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...
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
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.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
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 :)
“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
~ George Orwell
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
That's judicial activism, don't you know.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
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:
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.
Donate free food here
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?
The country is sick, and you want to blame the snot coming out your nose?
Lobbyists aren't the problem: they're a symptom.
If you think imaginary property and real property are the same, when does your house become public domain?
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 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.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm just a ______
Yes, I'm ____ a ___.
And I'm _______ here on _______ ____.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
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 not had anything vaguely resembling a free market since the Depression).
Nothing except a free market economy will ever be able to cope with black swans.
and that it is temporary (god I hope so),
Social Security was a "temporary emergency measure." And it will end, when the Ponzi scheme (which it is) collapses under its own weight. Government never voluntarily gives up any of its power. But go on hoping for change you can believe in.
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.
Actually, it got turned into a giant gimme to the insurance companies (who are crying all the way to the bank) and yet another giant bureaucracy that will destroy the quality of health care in this country. Along with tons of extra police-state tidbits like extra taxes on gold.
They passed a toothless wall-street reform act.
That's kind of the point. The people were screaming against the bailouts. The more we learned, the louder we screamed. So they passed this to placate us and promise "This will keep it from ever happening again." And people fell for it. Most Americans are still so brainwashed that they actually trust the "government" to protect them from the "evil corporations."
Regulations like that are just a security blanket. For all intents and purposes, those "evil corporations" have become "the government."
And saying this is as bad as Bush II is going too far. We're not stuck in any new intractable wars,
He's following Bush II's policies pretty much point for point. Along with his handling of accused "enemy combatants"...at least Bush II never sentenced an American citizen to death without any sort of trial. And the war machine's trying really hard to find an excuse to open up another front in Iran. Give it time.
we haven't lost all of our allies,
I suspect that's mainly because they're still buying into the belief that "absolutely anyone would have to be better than Bush" (which I thought, too, until I started to actually listen to what he was--and wasn't--actually saying.
He has managed to insult most of our allies and kiss most of our enemy's asses. Not quite as bad as Bush II, but I think he more than makes up for it elsewhere.
and we haven't had any new worldwide economic collapses.
Not really fair to blame that one totally on Bush (though he definitely deserves a share of the blame). The roots for this one go back to at least Carter's days. And we're pretty much still in the middle of it. (Throwing money at it makes it look like things are improving, but you have to fix the actual problems before you can expect them to go away).
Much as I despise Bush, this collapse is more the fault of the boom-bust cycle that's guaranteed by the Federal Reserve and government interference in the market (in this case, encouraging, and sometimes requiring, banks to take extra risks while promising to protect them when the risks backfire).
Mainstream economists are starting to admit that we're still in serious trouble, and won't be in the clear for a long time. I almost suspect they're finally coming around to the idea that the double-dip the Austrians are predicting just might be possible after all.
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.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel