While we rarely agree with New York Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on just about anything, she is absolutely spot-on in her criticism of the Congressional “leadership’s” handling of this almost 6,000 page so-called “stimulus” bill, of which “stimulus” turns out to be just a tiny part apparently. The entire bill is a so-called “omnibus” spending bill that finances the government until September, 2021, along with apparently many hefty aide servings of pork. No one knows, however, because no one, including members of Congress who are supposed to be able to vote intelligently on a bill because they read it and are aware of what’s in it, were never given an opportunity to read it or understand it.
In the famous words of current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D. Ca), “. . . we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it – away from the fog of the controversy.” Now to be fair, that statement was in relation to the citizenry learning what was in the Obamacare bill years ago, not the membership, though the membership had no idea either. But either way it is astounding in a representative democracy that the handfull of (hopefully) pre-senile senior citizens who run Congress feel perfectly comfortable telling their members to pass a bill that no one has read.
And that is business as normal.
What are these people thinking? Read our December 2, 2020, post The Massachusetts General Court And Its “Leadership” Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves, which is about the exact same issue on the state level, wherein the Massachusetts General Court got only hours to read a large and highly controversial piece of legislation on police “reform” before a vote on it.
The arrogance and irresponsibility of these “leaders” is stunning, though we suppose not surprising given their history. But no one voted for them to be the “leadership” of Congress or of the country. Their districts voted them in so they could serve in Congress and represent that district – no one voted for them to dictate policy and laws to the rest of us, never mind being a shepherd for the sheep in Congress. None of us checked off a ballot voting for Nancy Pelosi as Majority Leader in the House, or McConnell in the Senate either.
But the feckless membership puts up with this with few complainers. The comical parts of all this are listening to those members and those outsiders who support or criticise such legislation even when they don’t know what’s in it other than what they were told by the “leadership” – the classic blind leading the blind. This is not what we elected these clowns for. We elected them so that they will soberly and responsibly think about what is good for the populace before they decide how to vote and then vote accordingly. That consideration should not be founded on what the “leadership” demands or insists on, or what lobbyists want, or even what the loudmouth minorities back home or in Washington demonstrate for. And it shouldn’t be determined by how desperate the membership is to get back home for Christmas.
We suggest that there should be a rule, or even a statute, or a Constitutional Amendment, mandating that members of Congress (and at least the Massachusetts General Court) get at least one week to review any proposed legislation prior to a vote on it. What’s the argument against that? That some legislation is critical and has to be passed immediately? Baloney. Congress has been futzing around with this bill for months and months, just like the Massachusetts legislature was, and it is only their own dilatoriness that has created some “crisis,” and they pull this nonsense time and time again. If they’d act like adults (although it is frightening to think that perhaps they actually are acting like adults), then they should focus on the job and get it done. Only in government and government bureaucracy is this type of nonsense tolerated. It is not tolerated in the private sector – people get fired when they pull this crap. Good luck firing Pelosi.
In any event, we propose a week of repose before a vote on any bill. That seems eminently sensible and might also result in better thought-out bills that aren’t going to be subject to judicial interpretations anywhere near as much as is currently the case. That will save us all a lot of trouble and hassle.