When exactly did our reps stop reading bills

[supernova]

that are in the hopper?

Whether you support a bill or oppose it, seems to me you ought to at the very least READ THE BILL. That's what you, as a representative, get paid for after all.

I want to know, when did this practice begin?

And how idiotic is it to debate about something you haven't read yet?!?

[Deja Q]

1. Hey, American workers are lazy and stupid... don't confirm the rumor by using our elected officials

:rofl:

[supernova]

2. It's moronic

:P

[BlooInBloo]

3. I'm more curious about when they *started*.

[asdjrocky]

17. You beat me to it.

[Journeyman]

4. What I don't understand is, with the internet and a host of volunteers available. . .

why don't elected officials have someone read through the bills and -- at the least -- highlight the passages that may be problematic.

No one has time or even the desire to read through all the bills introduced in a session, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to divide the task among a group of trusted advisers and volunteers and at least get substantive feedback on each of the proposals.

This is why I like the idea of posting to the internet every bill under consideration. Let the public have a chance to review everything and I'm certain our elected representatives will have every questionable paragraph brought to their attention.

[supernova]

I support this idea also

posting to the internet every bill under consideration. Let the public have a chance to review everything ...

I'm all for that. And it could be that members of the public doing their due diligence on these bills will force the congress folks to read the bills just to sound competent from their end of the conversation.

I can hope, anyway.

[Common Sense Party]

12. Every bill is on the internet.

[Incitatus]

5. Their corporate donors tell them what to vote for so it doesn't matter?

[Lagomorph]

6. I don't think they ever started.

They read the cliff notes, but the Devil is in the details. They're too busy building their portfolios with insider trading.

How many times have we seen the government complain about "unforeseen circumstances?"

[valerief]

7. I thought bill reading was what their large taxpayer-paid staffs were supposed to do. nt

[TheCoxwain]

8. They 'Outsource' it..

[treestar]

9. They are big picture people, doncha know

Who writes them? Maybe they are the people the media should interview.

[NightWatcher]

10. the same time they stopped writing them

and allowed the lobbyists to do it for them

[Warpy]

11. Probably about the time the sheer volume of legislation,

proclamations, and constituent pleas for help forced them to hare staff.

I know what I'd do if my staff were charged to read a bill that contained the phrase "great white hope" and didn't warn me about it.

I'd be looking for better staff.

[notesdev]

13. It's the concentration of power

into ever fewer hands... and they don't even give a shit how they wield that power as long as they have it. The contempt is breathtaking.

[proud2BlibKansan]

14. That's what their aides are for

This is just a dumb right wing talking point.

[damntexdem]

15. I think around 1774. But I could be wrong.

It might have been earlier. ;-)

[ljm2002]

16. Right about the time...

...they started writing 1000+ page bills filled with special provisions, exceptions, and wrinkles that their corporate masters could take full advantage of while the rest of us are left wondering what the stinking thing says in the first place.