Reading the bill

Thanks for posting this Lucy (0.00 / 0)

I was amazed at how little coverage this story got, since there had been quite a bit of coverage previously on the RGGI bill's travels, as well as some coverage of Legislative sloppiness. But this episode, which was an elegant combination of both, seems to have fallen between the cracks other than coverage in The Lobby and on Conservation NH.  

---

by: vparmele @ Fri May 20, 2011 at 22:47:48 PM UTC

Seth--You've missed the point completely--as usual (4.00 / 5)

Lucy refers to the choreographed effort in the last election to claim that Carol Shea-Porter didn't read bills. This was part of a nation wide Rethuglican campaign and became a favorite here amongst the loud and obnoxious Tea Party, Free Party crowd.

I heard it over and over at town meeting--especially vis a vis the Health Care Bill.

Drone Drone Drone Drone Drone

So what is your response? A law? ( as a Libertarian I have to guess that you are just being snarky.)

But your main rebuttal reverts to another yet complex excuse with all the procedural twists and turns that showcase your deep knowledge of how a legislative body works ( after all you've been there for 5 whole months) while failing to take responsibility for incompetence.

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Sat May 21, 2011 at 12:01:00 PM UTC

actually, not snarky at all. (0.00 / 1)

There is a real bill to do this proposed for Congress: http://www.downsizedc.org/etp/...
I'm seriously asking if Democrats would cosponsor such a bill for NH's General Court... if the complaint is that we aren't reading the bills.

And once again, not only was my factual comment removed as a troll, but I'm also being told that my input is unwelcome because I haven't been there long enough to understand matters which I've got actual knowledge of.  So why exactly should I bother?

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun May 22, 2011 at 18:57:14 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Once more you miss the point (4.00 / 2)

Seth

You can't be serious about a bill to force people to read bills.

How would you enforce it?

Doesn't sound very libertarian either.

Sounds like political posturing to me. ( hence my reference to snark)

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Sun May 22, 2011 at 23:58:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Your true colors have just shown (4.00 / 2)

I checked the organization behind the Read the Bill effort. It's a Libertarian non profit.

Forcing people to do something is libertarian if it suits your agenda.

Unreal.

My hostility to the Free State Movement has grown by leaps and bounds since January.

Thanks for leaking though.  

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Mon May 23, 2011 at 00:06:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Leaking? (0.00 / 1)

1) The organization 'behind' that bill is a group devoted to smaller government... no secret there.  It is called 'Downsize DC' afterall...
2) You seem to think I was already planning on proposing that sort of bill in NH, which wasn't my original intent: I was asking if anyone was interested in that sort of solution to what they were complaining about.  I wasn't otherwise thinking about that bill.
3) My (now hidden) comment as to what happened has been proved correct, as the newest diary/video shows: one rep failed to read the amendment wrongly put together by OLS (wrong version) for him and just assumed it was correct, and the others had no reason to doubt him and double check.  The old 'assume' truism applies.

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Wed May 25, 2011 at 01:59:52 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The proposed bill isn't particularly helpful (0.00 / 0)

This is the sort of thing that sounds like a very good idea, but it's really not particularly useful. Standing alone, legal text is frequently meaningless unless you happen to know all of the applicable code that is being modified. Reading through a bill without this context will not create any sort of useful knowledge. In order to understand what you're voting on you generally need to talk with someone who has expertise in the specific language and the sections of law affected. It's one of the reason why there are legislative staffs in Washington and why there should be legislative staff (and fewer legislators) in NH. Making people sit and listen to someone drone on about modifying section 5 of code 1001 by inserting the following text won't appreciably increase their insight into how to vote on a bill. when you throw in that literally dozens of bills are passed each day, frequently in an expedited manner, this is just a recipe for making government more dysfunctional, not less.

---

by: nhdemocrat @ Mon May 23, 2011 at 01:52:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Seth's bill is just another sham (4.00 / 3)

NH Dem. Check the source. The organization promoting this is another "small gov" front.

The idea is so stupid it doesn't deserve a reasonable response.

They want dysfunctional government.  

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Mon May 23, 2011 at 04:13:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

what about the Shoreland Protection Act (4.00 / 3)

Something even more troubling to me about the intended amendment, to repeal RGGI, was that it was attached to a bill calling for the reform of the State's  Shoreland Protection Act. Members of the House knew that the Senate really wanted to approve this bill, and hoped to sneak the repeal of RGGI in with it.

What do you have to say about that, Mr Cohn. Is that your idea of State government functioning at its best, - and with great care for NH's environment ? Or is there something else going on, which we citizens wouldn't understand.

---

by: vparmele @ Sun May 22, 2011 at 15:30:22 PM UTC

Horsetrading and Politics as usual (0.00 / 1)

I'd be the first to say that it's not 'government functioning at its best', but I would describe it as 'government functioning as it does, and always has, and likely always will'...

BH's token Republican / Libertarian / TeaPartier / Free Stater, courtesy of a Federal Affirmative Action grant, despite many of his comments being marked down and hidden.

---

by: SethCohn @ Sun May 22, 2011 at 18:59:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It is one thing to read the bill... (4.00 / 2)

it is entirely a different matter to have the intellectual capacity to understand the bil.

It is not proven that even if the majority of this new majority read the bill the could grasp what they are reading.

On another note, in years past, the House had dozens of members who actually went line by line of each bill.  Caroline Gross, the late majority leader, Donna Sytek the former Speaker are but two examples.

Have you told a stranger today about Bill O'Brien and his Tea Party agenda? The people of NH deserve to hear about O'Brien  and his majority committed to destroying New Hampshire and remaking it into a armed survivalist preserve.  

---

by: Ray Buckley @ Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:26:15 PM UTC

in my committee... (0.00 / 0)

I am on the infamous Redress Committee.  Some of the petitions we get are quite literally incomprehensible.  Maybe it's my puny brain, or maybe the petitions don't actually make sense- but in either case reading them does not always lead to understanding on my part.

Luckily, the petitions are short- although the complainants often show up with lengthy written material.

---

by: TimothyHorrigan @ Mon May 23, 2011 at 12:44:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ray is right: here's why (4.00 / 1)

Our fearless leaders obviously can't comprehend the NH Constitution.

But we know they have read it because they have told us this at least 1000 times.

hint: looking at words and reading are two different things.

---

by: Chaz Proulx @ Mon May 23, 2011 at 16:23:31 PM UTC