Congress About To Pass 'The ______Act of____' (These Are The People We Elect?)
from the bang-head-on-wall-slowly dept
This coming Wednesday I was supposed to be attending the Congressional Internet Caucus' State of the Net West event, but late last week it was announced that the event was postponed, because for only the third time in the past twenty years, the Speaker of the House (in this case, Nancy Pelosi) has called the House back into session early to vote on pending legislation. With Congress back in session the Congressional reps scheduled to attend the event couldn't make it, and it's not much of a Congressional Internet Caucus get together without Congressional reps. Anyway, the last time the House was called back early like this, it involved emergency legislation to deal with Hurricane Katrina. So what's so important this time around? Apparently, it's The ______Act of____.Yes, The ______Act of____.
It appears that our friendly Senators were in such a rush to get this bill through that they forgot to name it. Jim Harper noticed this when the bill showed up as the oddly named The XXXXXXAct ofXXXX on his always excellent WashingtonWatch site. Apparently, the Library of Congress' Thomas reporting system converted the underscores into X's. And, yes, even The Congressional Record (pdf) notes that "This Act may be cited as the "_______Act of______".
And don't think the House can easily change it, either. If it changes the name of the bill, the Senate would have to come back and vote again. In the meantime, what is the bill? Well, it's actually been quite a moving target. It was originally about taxing executives who received TARP funds. Then it was changed entirely to have something to do with aviation, and now it's about an Education Jobs Fund. At one point, prior to its current non-name, it was called "The Aviation Safety and Investment Act of 2010," but that's got nothing to do with what it is now. If you look at WashingtonWatch's own summary of the bill, it still says the bill "would impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients," even though I don't believe that's in the bill any more. As Harper notes in a different blog post, since this bill (by number only) is listed on the White House's pending legislation page, anyone tracking that bill might think Obama is about to sign into a law a bill (which hasn't been approved by Congress) about taxing TARP bonuses... despite that not even being close to true.
I honestly have no idea if the specific details of this bill, requiring the mad dash back to DC for House Members is a good thing or not. And I don't know whether the taxes on TARP recipients or the Aviation Safety efforts were important as well. But all of this demonstrates a few key points: (1) if you're trying to follow what Congress is doing by following bills, the fact that they just swap stuff in and out can make that pretty difficult. (2) For a bill that's deemed so damn important, wouldn't you think that at least someone involved with it would have taken the time to give it a name? Or were they really in such a rush to approve it that it didn't need a name?
![Hide This Hide this](https://ii.techdirt.com/s/t/i/topclose.png)
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How about...
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
But, in fact, that isn't what you want in a bill. You want it written in clear, specific, legal terms - something the average lawyer can understand, and all lawyers, upon reading it, can agree on what it means.
Legal terms are a precise and specific vocabulary, and they need to be used for legal purposes.
Just like you have to use proper syntax in a programming language for the computer to understand it, the "programming language" for the legal system is the set of legal terms, and they need to be used, clearly and consistently, in laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We could suggest
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kang and Kodos would be proud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kang and Kodos would be proud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
read it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: read it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tl;dr
The lobbyists write the legislation. The only people expected to read it are the lawyers paid to apply it, and the judges paid to interpret it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read it
I think they should have to write it out (by hand of course) before they can vote for it. Voting against it does not require this, and if the hand-written version doesn't match the official version perfectly then the vote doesn't count.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: read it
http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/campaigns/27
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just doing what they were elected to do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bill shortage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill shortage
I'm not sure of you've heard of this thing: Republicans in the Senate? Apparently they just realized that the Senate has mostly run on traditional adherence to reasonable practices.. which is for LOSERS! How about some blind holds on everything!
So yeah, there's actually an extremely good reason people are scrambling to get any bill through, even if it's something reasonable and necessary, like taxing the bonuses of TARP millionaires.
But who cares! It's way more fun to make "Congress so dumb" jokes, amirite! Congress stupid hurr durr!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Bill shortage
So wait, are you arguing that congress is smart? Really? If you consider congress smart then you must be dumb.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you think your representative is stupid...
http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=951
Yes, many members of Congress are barely functioning idiots. But they're representatives. If you are represented by an idiot, you, my friend are an idiot.
And if you complain that bills must be passed in ridiculous ways without acknowledging WHY they must be passed in this way, you are far worse than an idiot. You are a puppet, squatting on the fist of a propagandist. Enjoy the ride.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: If you think your representative is stupid...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Bill shortage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ailing airlines
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Looks like porn legislation to me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This strange bill??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're radifying ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you wanna know..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*sigh*
Par for the course.
Worst.
Administration.
Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: *sigh*
And the one after that.
Repeat ad nauseam.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We nothing; I don't vote Democrat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about renaming it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey, TechDirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, TechDirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, TechDirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, TechDirt
The way the techdirt summary is phrased is a hatchet job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, TechDirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, TechDirt
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/opinion/09krugman.html
Also, check out the pie chart here:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/09/schoolteachers-driving-cadillacs/
Also, try to remember that revenues are down because of massive economic failure. That's not the fault of the states. And when all those state workers lose their jobs, it has a visible negative impact on the economy. Moreso than if some 1% of wealthy people pay what they paid in the 90s for taxes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hey, TechDirt
I didn't think it was nefarious.
I made no comment on the quality of the bill at all. In fact, I said: "I honestly have no idea if the specific details of this bill, requiring the mad dash back to DC for House Members is a good thing or not." This post had nothing to do with the relative merits of the bill. It had to do with the screwed up process by which the bill got to where it is.
I find it highly amusing and ironic that you trash me for not having done enough when you clearly didn't even read the whole post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hey, TechDirt
Bummer dude!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hey, TechDirt
I'm not sure what you mean by that at all. I had no interest in what was specifically in the bill, as that was not the point of the post at all. I made no comment on whether the bill itself was important or good or bad. I simply pointed out the FACTUAL information that the name was missing and that the actual contents of the bill changed repeatedly, leading to confusion on many sites that track this info.
I felt -- and still believe -- that both of these points are highly problematic, and indicative of a political machine that does not function well.
This site is pretty religiously non-political. I disagree equally with politicians on both sides of the aisle. In fact, we purposely don't mention the political affiliation of politicians on the site (unless it's key to the story) in order to avoid political discussions.
So I disagree. You think that what's in the bill was the point of this post. It was not. The points I made were factual, and important. I don't see how I was "pwned" by anyone's PR machine, since this story had nothing to do with any particular political party.
Finally, we don't delete posts, no matter how critical or wrong they might be. I believe in responding to ignorance with facts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hey, TechDirt
But that's just me being critical and wrong :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Blank Act of Blank you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The _____ Act of ____ is so ________!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I know what it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nameless bill
in order to get it passed. The process of debate is to create an understanding for all those who vote on the content. It may be a slower process however the American people then can understand where their represenatives stand on the subject at hand. Doesn't that open the door of who they are representing instead of lobbyist and special interest groups
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Same thing with technology
Look at technology - it's becoming so incredibly complex that people are just choosing to not use it, or they can't figure it out and it becomes more of a burden than a tool. Programming languages are becoming too complex with C++ as the main language (now that patent troll Oracle took over Sun, I doubt Java will have a bright future).
The people that made most of the laws are dead, and so are their reasons for creating the laws. No one knows why many laws are in place, and if the government can't come up with a good reason, then the law shouldn't be there. Unfortunately, no one looks thru and filters out these old laws (otherwise marijuana would be legal by now) which means the legal system is a huge mess.
Don't you just wish there was a "Reboot" button?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]