Daily Kos

CSPAN2 NOW - GOP caught redhanded, Dems going off

by kd4dean

Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:50:41 PM PDT

elevated from the diaries by DemFromCT. Watch this if you can. Ted Stevens has just apologized to the entire Senate and pulled the IRS provision that Stevens said was 'slipped into the bill' by 'some staffer'. The provision apparantly allowed certain Chairs of Senate committees to have access to anyone's IRS data (like the Texas DA going after DeLay). Harken wants to know who the staffer is. Watch the show live. McCain was livid. So was Grassley, both (R).

Sen. Conrad from ND just called the GOP out on this budget bill.  Apparently they stuck a provision that removes any expectations of privacy regarding our tax returns in the middle of this 3000 page bill in the middle of the night.  They didn't tell the Dems.  But they caught them.  This is amazing to watch - they're going OFF.

This tactic is NOT new, but getting caught and having Dems throw fits IS.

[editor's note, by kd4dean]I changed title so people would know what it's about. Plus I found this on the Weldon Amendment - http://www.latinainstitute.org/policy.html Weldon Amendment One particularly harmful amendment to the proposed Labor-HHS Appropriations bill in the House of Representatives is the Weldon Amendment. This provision would allow healthcare entities to refuse to provide abortion services, counsel women about abortion, pay for abortions for low-income women, and refer women to healthcare professionals who provide abortion services. States that refuse to comply with this Amendment risk losing federal funding for health, labor and education programs. Latinas, along with all women, risk losing essential reproductive health services if this Amendment passes.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 955 comments

  •  McCain is pretty pissed, too (none / 1)

    He was on about 15 minutes ago.

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

    by mcjoan on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:08:14 PM PDT

  •  YES!! I just started watching CSpan (4.00 / 2)

    since I found this web site - I love it. Evidently everyone got into their office this morning and found a huge stack of papers to read before passing this bill. And you say this goes on all the time?? Gosh, do I have a lot to learn.

    It's a paradoxical game plan: imposing democracy abroad while impeding it here.

    by Griffen on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:08:17 PM PDT

  •  I love that guy! EOM (none / 0)

    by Readstoomuch on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:09:08 PM PDT

  •  Even the DINO Baucus (none / 0)

    was railing about this. Raise hell, guys!!

    "There is danger from all men. The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no man living with power to endanger the public liberty." - John Adams.

    by mcjoan on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:09:11 PM PDT

  •  Time to stop dispensing with bill readings. (3.99 / 155)

    It's boring and it takes forever, and there's no guarantee anyone will stay awake long enough to catch anything, but the GOP has lost its right to unanimous consent for waiving the reading of this or any other bill.

    Make 'em read every one out loud. It's in the rules. You have to consent to waiving the reading. Stop doing it. It'll throw a huge wrench in the works and delay every single piece of legislative business.

    But don't be afraid. Have a press conference. Explain why you're doing it. You're in the right here.

    by Kagro X on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:09:54 PM PDT

    •  I wish I could give you more 4s (none / 0)

      This comment is spot on. Very good idea.

      Always be sincere, even if you don't mean it.

      by justinb on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:29:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Exactly (4.00 / 13)

      Have a press conference...

      Do away with the obstructionist BS right away:

      Trust in the colleagiality and integrity of our colleagues used to allow for a more efficient legislative process, but now, thanks to the leadership's abuse of power on even the most basic of ethics and rules, we must now have every bill read into the record.  The reprimands from the ethics committee do not add confidence that we can trust either the word or the process that the leadership has now crafted.

      Words can sometimes, in moments of grace, attain the quality of deeds. --Elie Wiesel

      by a gilas girl on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:51:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Bill Readings and Time (3.87 / 8)

      All bills should be read completely and then there should be a 24 hour period after the final reading after amendments before the vote takes place. No Congressman should ever vote for a bill if he doesn't understand every provision.

      Single payer universal healthcare coverage saves money and saves lives.

      by freelunch on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:51:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "No Congressman should ever vote . . (4.00 / 5)

        . . . for a bill if he doesn't understand every provision".

        This is the most visionary proposal of all time.

        by No Preference on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:16:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if no time to read the bill, just vote 'no' (4.00 / 2)

          what's so hard about that?

          by shmooth on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:36:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They'd get decimated on the campaign trail (4.00 / 5)

            The reason you vote for a bill even if you haven't read it, is because in these days of sound-bite media, bills are just marketing slogans. If you vote against them, you can be ruined by an opponent.

            Example: what would happen if you voted against the "Clean Air Act"? What, you don't want clean air! Throw that bastard out of office! Or, what if you vote against the "PATRIOT ACT"? You're not a patriot! You traitor! Let's get the negative ads ready!

            More subtly: what if you vote against the omnibus appropriations bill, just because it has nasty anti-abortion crap in it? You're hurting our troops! You're paralysing our federal government! Look at what they did to Kerry for voting against the $87billion porkbarrel for Halliburton: they turned it into "Kerry doesn't support our troops". Fuckers. And of course there's the war resolution-- pushed through immediately before the mid-term elections so that everyone would be too terrified of negative ads to dare vote against it.

            Most people are totally unaware that reps don't read bills (thank you Michael Moore, the single best journalist to never practice journalism!).

            Many people who oppose the PATRIOT act, still to this day don't know that it was pushed through the sausage-maker during the Anthrax scare (Moore strangely didn't mention it), when everyone on the Hill was running around terrified, and Democrats and Planned Parenthood clinics (those mortal enemies of Islam) were getting sent deadly spores in the mail [insert favourite conspiracy theory here]. I mean, are you gonna vote against it at a time that you personally and your office and staffers are afraid they are under attack? No way.

            And during those days that Daschle's office was getting Anthrax mailings, do you know what the Repugs were pushing through the Senate with high priority? Yes-- right-wing federal court appointees. Lots of 'em. In a great big hurry.

            But that is an extreme and dramatic case; the typical scenario is much more mundane. This stuff stinks because the light of day hasn't shined on it in a long time. Thank you, Britney Spears Media. Luckily, we're starting to poke a flashlight in here and there. And I'm glad to see the Dems start raising a ruckus. That's key.

            Most people have no idea of the procedural issues. They're so complex and byzantine that I learn something new every day, and more and more people like us are getting plugged in and starting to pay attention. Please keep diaries like these coming, as well as the one listing a bunch of hilarious "Tom Delay Amendment" parliamentary stunts.

            If Pelosi and Reid start raising shitstorms like these from within the halls of Congress, and we compliment them with own Sinclair-like shitstorms from out here in blogistan, then I think we're on our way to taking back our country.

            Obama's on the way!

            by goatchowder on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 09:18:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Have you seen the size of some of these bills? (none / 1)

            I would rather our politicians politik than spend all of their time indoors reading several thousand page documents they can't understand without a team of lawers.

            by Arca on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 09:54:23 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Then perhaps that would be an incentive (4.00 / 2)

              for them to stop writing bills in the several thousands of pages.  Perhaps actually having to read these things will make them realize just how rediculously oversaturated they are, and cause them to start trimming out the excess (including the riders and the pork) to get them down to a manageable level.

              by fellicity on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 11:23:18 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Documents (none / 1)

              Doesn't matter. Forcing them to read the bill would at the very least free up enough time so that the lawyers COULD read the bill. Even if the GOP went 24-7 with bills like this, it would give the Dems at least two days or so to read the bill themselves.

              This is the way democracy ends Not with a bomb But with a gavel -Max Baucus

              by emptywheel on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 08:00:47 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  We'd need to elect smarter people... (none / 1)

        ...a lot of those guys wouldn't understand everything if they had a lifetime to read the bills!

        by redsoxkangaroo on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:58:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Conyers (none / 1)

        Do you remember the look on Conyers' face when M. Moore asked him if he'd read a certain bill in F/911?  It was like "are you for real?"

        pith

        by moltar on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:04:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Could dKos help? (4.00 / 12)

      Could dKos be a source of additional bill reading just to informally point out, "Hey this looks strange."  We could portion it out just like we did for rapid response to the debate points.

      -6.00/-7.18

      by TarheelDem on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:53:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good idea (none / 0)

        If the logistics could be worked out, I'd be totally into that.

        by Rithmck on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:11:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Responsibility for Hill Staffers (none / 0)

          Sure, this is something the public could assist with. I understand, in addition, this is a responsibility of Congressional staffers, including, among many things, to read, analyze, and make recommendations regarding pending legislation.

          by quam on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:51:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The reality: not a chance. (3.66 / 3)

            Most Members get their information on what's in the bill from summaries provided by the party organizations in their respective houses. That information comes from committee staffers who've watched the bill from start to finish, but very few if any of them have actually read the entire bill word for word. They each have sections they're responsible for, and specific provisions they're interested in, but they wouldn't tell you their job is to read every word of the bill and know it cold.

            The staff of a bill's sponsor provides a summary of the bill's provisions to the Members of the subcommittee that first considers the bill. Then a summary of the bill and the subcommittee action on it gets passed up to the full committee, where more staffers summarize the subcommittee's summary. When reported out of committee, the summary of that summary gets summarized by the party organizations (the GOP Conference and the Democratic Caucus). Finally, Members get a summary of the summary of the summary of the summary from their personal staffers.

            In essence, nobody reads nothin'.

            by Kagro X on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:02:08 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  full text search (3.66 / 3)

              although a "distributed computing" approach to bill vetting is a good idea, you don't even really need to do anything more than just use control-F on the full text of a bill (all the associated files).. for a set of republican "code-words" to their agenda items.  Can legislative staffers/minions work this in as part of their regular activity in vetting bills?

              "I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords..."

              by pawlr on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:14:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  XML of the bills (none / 1)

        Of course we can help...there's even a website, xml.house.gov, with information on how to use the XML files of bills. If I didn't have all these projects up in the air right now, I'd set something up myself. But maybe someone out there has more initiative....if you'd like any help, email me.

        -- Ben Stanfield Political Technologist www.BenStanfield.com

        by acaben on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 09:30:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Love to watch them read the Patriot Act... (none / 0)

      ...all 1,200 pages or whatever.

      "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

      by DC Pol Sci on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:56:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Damn, (none / 0)

      ...Kangro X, you are good!!  I'd vote for you for just about anything.  

      "The survival value of intelligence is that it allows us to extinct a bad idea, before the idea extincts us." -- Karl Popper

      by eyeswideopen on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:46:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Even better idear (none / 0)

      I love it! I'd give you a 4, but at this point it's kind of superfluous.  

      But I have a better idear. Instead of requiring reading the bills out loud (which wouldn't be that effective -- those things are darn convoluted), wouldn't it be great if our elected officials, or at least their staff, would actually read these frigging things before voting on them??!!

      I'm reminded of the expression on Charlie Rangel's face in Fahrenheit 9/11 when he admitted that nobody in Congress actually reads things like  the Patriot Act before voting on them.  Ugh.

      In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

      by Paul in Berkeley on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 05:21:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  F 9-11 (none / 0)

        That was John Conyers, not Charlie Rangel.

        by sam3am on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 05:55:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I stand corrected (none / 0)

          Oops! I stand corrected! The older I get, the more I have to remember. At this point, anything new that comes in has to knock something else out.

          Thanks!

          In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

          by Paul in Berkeley on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:35:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No Congressman Left Behind (none / 1)

        How about if the took a test on the bill?  We need to keep up our standards, don't we?

        by Heart of the Rockies on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:34:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Mandatory readings would work wonders for you... (4.00 / 2)

        We have them here in New Zealand for all legislation, which keeps lengths down rather effectively.
        You'd have to be insane to propose a bill 1200 pages long when you know you'll have to sit through 3 readings of it.

        Finally - it makes it a bit harder for our "representatives" to pass evil legislation when no one is looking. Doesn't completely stop them though.  Things like pay rises for politions just get passed 'in urgency' instead, where they have to keep going until agreement is reached.

        All laws should be understandable by any reasonably intelligent person with a basic legal dictionary.  (Except for the tax-code, naturally.  That is the only bill we have of ridiculous length)

        note: by 'reading' I don't mean the whole thing is read aloud.  Each article/ammendment/whatever of the legislation is brought to the houses attention for possible debate and needs to be individually approved.  This means there is no "we didn't know that clause was in there" defense.

        by Malificient on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 08:28:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  We have the same rule (4.00 / 2)

        in the Nebraska Legislature where I served four years. In fact, the reading out loud of the bills on Final reading is in our constitution. It goes back to the 1800's when not as many people could read so it was required to read each bill out loud before passage. It's been tried many times to eliminate this procedure from the constitution but fails always. It is very time consuming and the clerks read the bills in a low mumble as fast an auctioneer. However, one provision we have in our legislature that is not in the US Senate, we have to be in our seats on the floor while the bill is read. Now THAT is torture. Can you imagine Santorum or some other toad having to sit for hours in their chairs while their own idiotic bills are droning on in the background?

        by NebraskaDem on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 10:54:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  time to dispense (none / 1)

      with 3300 page bills !

      This is BS ! they are screwing women on their reprouductive rights and they put this IRS records crap into it ..

      This Goverment is NOT serving us ..

      I am so outraged by these idiots .

      by jackieca on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 05:37:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We Need for Repugs/Red States To Be . . . . (none / 0)

        repulsed by all this.

        They are the ones that need to wake up and realize that they just finished voting for.

        Maybe then, they will realize they have been screwed and vote these sorry bastards out of office.

        Recall anyone?

        by freepress4all on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:58:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  If I could I would go a step further (none / 0)

      and require each change made in committee to be voted on seperately by members of congress.  Such a provision would really cut down on the pork and things like this.

      by john doh on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 04:48:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I'm in favor of anything that slows the process (none / 0)

      They don't give us health care and they don't give us decent or reasonably education.  All they pay for is wars and prisons, and anything that slows that down, gets my stamp of approval.

      by apandapion on Mon Nov 22, 2004 at 04:56:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Tipjar (3.98 / 66)

    Durbin says it crosses a line that we should never allow to be crossed - He referred to his files being hacked awhile back - they're mentioning Nixon and McCarthy.

    Everyone is just pounding on this - Barbara Boxer on now.

    "This is a street fight! You can't play nice in a street fight!" R. Spano, 2003

    by kd4dean on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:10:57 PM PDT

    •  What staffers have found (4.00 / 11)

      downloading stuff in the middle of the night, all taking portions of the bill, they discovered this little bit. There's much more they haven't even analysed yet.

      Boxer discussing the Weldon amendment, a "conscience clause" for HMOs to deny services for women reproductive health. Another sneak in the dark move.

      With nothing to believe in the compass always points to Terrapin... - Robert Hunter

      by TaraIst on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "A line that should never be crossed" (4.00 / 6)

      This is a tip o' the rhetorical hat to Bill Clinton's speech two days ago on the dedication of his library in Little Rock, AR.

      Clinton nicely, and gracefully (too gracefully, but what the hell) delineated the difference between Republicans at their best, who would say, this line is not to be crossed under any circumstances, and Democrats at their best, who would knock down barriers which should no longer be standing, or which should never have been put up in the first place.

      Durbin was basically pointing out that the Republicans are violating their own tenets.

      (I have paraphrased the Big Dog's remarks; he was much more eloquent, but I think I have accurately expressed the sentiment.)

      Durbin and Obama are my state's senators. Go thou, and do likewise! :-)

      by derbes on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:30:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Illinois Senators (none / 1)

        Yup, Clinton was too nice. I wouldn't have done so well. "Republicans haven't quite managed yet to completely destroy the country." Probably doesn't go over so well.

        Durbin and Obama are my state's Senators too.

        My first state was Wisconsin. Feingold and Kohl look pretty good too. They get ranked ahead of Durbin and Obama for now mostly because Obama only has a state legislative record--we still have to see what he'll do on a national level.

        In between living in Wisconsin and Illinois, I was in Iowa.

        Iowa's Senators are not so good. Chuck Grassley and Tom Harkin. To be truthful, I agree with most of Harkin's politics (a glaring exception being DHSEA cosponsored with Hatch--which Durbin is on the correct side of), just find him to be personally repugnant.

        And if you need anything...there's some ants.

        by Skipbidder on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:51:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  That defines true "conservatives" (4.00 / 3)

        A true conservative is someone who has an almost religious respect for law and order, for clear, black-and-white standards of conduct. Think "military ethics" here: a consistent, almost authoritarian system of rule-following whose strength comes from its rigidity and consistency.

        True "conservatives" also have a deep reverence for the past, for tradition, for the status quo, and an almost visceral dislike of change, novelty, and modernity. I consider many environmentalists and followers of ancient Eastern and Native American traditions to be "conservatives" in this respect. These can be good qualities that are useful and appropriate in some situations. Standing up for Senate procecures and opposing the "Tom DeLusional Rule" are good examples of such situations.

        Perhaps this is the quality that Big Dog was praising (damn, he is such a brilliant speaker). I also wish he had done it in a more pointed way. The Repugs have become unmoored from conservatism, and have been taken over by a cabal of radicals who won't ever be appeased (c.f. the intro of Krugman's "The Great Unraveling"). They started out with fundamentalist Christianity and fundamentalist free-market economics, and have degenerated into what seems to be a complete disdain for anyone and anything else. At this point, they're all about naked pursuit of power and nothing more. Krugman's right: they really just don't seem to recognise or acknowledge the legitimacy of our system of government.

        Yikes. We really have no choice but to fight those guys with everything we've got.

        Obama's on the way!

        by goatchowder on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 09:58:33 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Your Senators (none / 0)

        Actually, Obama won't be your Senator until he is sworn in early in January 2005. For now, Peter Fitzgerald is still the junior U.S. Senator from Illinois, and he doesn't seem to likely to be of help with these concerns.

        by FlagstaffHank on Sun Nov 21, 2004 at 03:08:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  My Senator Durbin (none / 0)

      oozes integrity.

      by peglyn on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:12:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  holy shit (4.00 / 15)

    this is going to be filibustered to death. They almost thought they got away with it. hahaha. Yay Sarbanes! (i'm a marylander) There's no way this is going to pass with this provision.
    I am very happy to see the Democrats taking on a Libertarian position. This is where we need to go. We need to make Republicans big government facists and Democrats small government proponents of freedom. This issue will trump the supposed 'morals' bull shit. we can do this.

    by Mark Arsenault on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:11:49 PM PDT

    •  Wooooo! (none / 0)

      This is a great start to our new geurrilla legislative war. Oh, and the other 49 of you - MD says "you're welcome" :-).

      jaiapprovedthis - Because I am right about things.
      Abolish Superdelegates by 2012

      by Jaiwithani on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:16:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Even this Virginian... (none / 0)

        ...thinks Paul Sarbanes is an excellent Senator, much better than the two Rethugs we've got.

        "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

        by DC Pol Sci on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:57:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Agreed, Sarbanes is a good one... (none / 0)

          ....even better than the two Republicans we have in Indiana!

          Are you listening, Senator Bayh?

          "The terrorists never stop thinking of ways to harm our country, and neither do we." - George W. Bush, 8/5/04

          by IrishAlum on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:29:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You know what I never got (none / 1)

            On issues like this, where we can clearly delineate Democrats from Republicans why aren't our moderate voices out there berating these extremists policies as an explanation for why they can't join that other party.

            You want to give kids health care, then put Lincoln's face on it.  Tax reform: Bayh.  Protecting small farms: Johnson and Nelson (NE).  Re-importing pharmaceutical drugs: Landrieu.

            -Hope never cost Corporate America a dime -Somebody blow Bush so we can impeach him already.

            by DWCG on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:20:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  I missed it (none / 0)

          What did Sarbannes do?

          Also a big fan.

          Did we get to hear from that slimy bastard George Allen?

          by LAS on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:50:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Just two more years... (none / 0)

          Repeat after me: "Senator Warner. Senator Warner. Senator Warner." Now go look at some VA demographic trends. Especially North VA. Then get out your blue marker and recolor your state.

          And, then come up here and get this slimy one-armed bandit of a governor off our backs. Erlich...

          jaiapprovedthis - Because I am right about things.
          Abolish Superdelegates by 2012

          by Jaiwithani on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:48:09 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Well written. (4.00 / 5)


      I am very happy to see the Democrats taking on a Libertarian position. This is where we need to go. We need to make Republicans big government facists and Democrats small government proponents of freedom. This issue will trump the supposed 'morals' bull shit. we can do this.

       Kudos.

       This should be carved in stone, stuck in a sock and said stone-filled sock should be used to brain the Democratic "leadership" on Capitol Hill.

       BenGoshi
      ________________

      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:54:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Sarbannnnes! (none / 0)

      I'm also a Marylander, and I think Sarbanes is absolutely wonderful. I'll never forget the time he emailed me back about a 20 paragraph response to the depletion of social security.

      (I know it was probably pre-written and answered by a staffer, but still it was sent back to me in about two days time.)

      Has Mikulski said anything yet?

      "When we are all guilty that will be democracy." -Albert Camus.

      by BrianL on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:45:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Go Dem Senators!! (none / 0)

    Don't let this piece of junk pass!!!

    Many Americans want you to stand up and fight for us!

    Keep fighting!!!

    by avoter on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:14:29 PM PDT

  •  watching now.. (none / 1)

    Love this.BOXER IS PISSED....thanks for the tip.

    It's Obamazing!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by Chamonix on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:17:12 PM PDT

  •  nt (none / 0)

    They have to pass a budget. This bill will die if they don't remove the provision. And it might not even pass if it came to a vote, now that this has become an issue.

    Further Reading | New Nebraska Network

    by ptmflbcs on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:19:57 PM PDT

  •  'Bout damn time (none / 1)

    to see some fighting spirit in the Dems.  

    Very kewl.

    O 4 O: Oregon for Obama!

    by smugbug on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:22:15 PM PDT

  •  blog bill checking? (3.94 / 18)

    When there are these massive bills with just a few hours for review, is there a way (or is it already being done somewhere) for a blog with a ton of people to download the bill and divide sections for review?  With 35,000 members, if only a small percentage participated, maybe more junk would be found.  Could a system be set up for this?  Is there one already?

    by avoter on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:25:37 PM PDT

    •  Damn good idea (none / 0)

      Let's see what we can find out and if it isn't already happening, let's get it started.

      by meg on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:29:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  good idea (4.00 / 3)

      it'd be a shitload of work though. Ever read through a bill? They're obfuscated to all get out. "Section 762 of Chapter XVI of Paragraph 32 is amended, striking the word "not" in the second sentence and inserting "dogs, cats and rabbits" after "boats" in the third sentence" and so on.

      If I had to pick just one constitutional amendment, sometimes I think a plain-language one would do the trick. With a germane-riders-only clause, of course.

      Doesn't everyone have a blog now?

      by cyclopatra on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:31:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The way to do it (none / 0)

        is the break the bill into readable segments.  That way no one would have to check the whole thing - we would only check some parts.  I think this would be very effective.  It would probably make for some good PR too, since I'm sure we'll find all kinds of junk in there.

        Turn ons: progressives, Democrats with spines Turn offs: conservatives, people named Bush, John McCain

        by Unstable Isotope on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:48:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would There Be (none / 0)

          an easy way to have a page devoted to each bill, then have links on there to each page. Any dKossite could go to the site, click on a page, and that page link should then disappear. That way, anyone can go online anytime and pour through a few pages and we'd know which pages hadnt been read by the links remaining.

          Does that make sense?

          SUPPORT CrashingtheStates!

          by RNinNC on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 11:22:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Amen to that (none / 0)

        I tried reading the last tax bill, it was s-l-o-w going. Divide and conquer would have to be the method to making a go of the idea.  

        A plain language amendment would make government much more open and accessable to us regular folk, and probably our congress-persons as well.

        I was wondering,what is a riders-only clause?

        by meg on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:48:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Germane Riders (4.00 / 4)

          If you limit all amendments to germane riders, nothing that is not directly related to the primary purpose of the bill will be in the bill. No amendments offering subsidies to the Lawrence Welk Museum would be germane to a tax bill.

          I would go further and outlaw the vast majority of omnibus bills, particularly spending and revenue bills; though, for example, a comprehensive reform of the IRC or the US Criminal Code would have to be one bill to work properly; it just might take up the entire session of Congress.

          Single payer universal healthcare coverage saves money and saves lives.

          by freelunch on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:56:14 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only problem is (4.00 / 2)

            that proscribing non-germane riders can deprive the minority party of one of its last lines of defense.  This is especially true right now since the Republicans will almost certainly move to denature the filibuster once the fight for the Supreme Court heats up.  A non-germane rider is sometimes the only shield against majoritarian will.  

            "Why stand on a silent stage--fight the war, fuck the norm"--Rage

            by PADC on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:14:12 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  How? (none / 0)

              Amendments to a bill get added in committee (requiring a vote of the committee members, and in the Senate at least, only the Ethics committee is evenly divided - the rest are controlled by the majority party) by a vote in the Senate (again, controlled by the majority), or in conference (which the Republicans like to exclude Democrats from). I suppose you could slow things up by offering amendment after amendment, but without filibuster, not for any longer than the majority party is willing to entertain it without demanding a vote.

              Doesn't everyone have a blog now?

              by cyclopatra on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:15:53 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  That's "germane-only" riders. (none / 1)

          It means, you can't stick riders on the bill that aren't directly related to the main purpose of the bill.

          Support the troops. Drive a smaller car.

          by republicans are idiots on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:56:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  germane riders only (4.00 / 4)

          means that any amendment to a bill would have to be at least mostly related to the purpose of the main bill. Right now basically anything can be offered as an amendment, which means that all sorts of pet projects and bugbears get tacked on to "must-pass" bills like the omnibus spending bills.

          Even more egregiously, the Republicans have adopted a practice of disallowing Democrats into conference meetings after a bill has passed. Tthe House and the Senate frequently pass versions of the same bill that are different to a lesser or greater degree, so a select number of Congresscritters from each house meet in a "conference" to work out the differences and come to a compromise. Then the bill goes back to each house, and they have an up-down vote on whether or not to accept the bill as it came out of the conference.

          No new amendments are supposed to be added to the bill in conference, but somehow it just keeps happening anyway. And since these riders are always tacked on to "must-pass" bills, and the bills can't be amended once they come out of conference, and our lazy Congresscritters rarely read the post-conference bill beyond scanning the conference report, all sorts of shit gets passed that way that would never stand on its own.

          Doesn't everyone have a blog now?

          by cyclopatra on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:59:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Limit length of bills. (none / 1)

          What is "germane"? What is "plain-language"?

          But 10,00 word count is 10,000 word count.

          Just a thought.

          (not sure what the number should be actually - just picked 10,000 out of the hat)

          Whatever you do will seem insignificant, but it is most important that you do it. - Mohandas K. Gandhi

          by blue secession on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:00:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think it's workable... (none / 0)

        Not in our current setup.  The whole "herding cats" problem with a bunch of people all spread out across the country and on different schedules, plus wildly diverse levels of knowledge so that.. well, I suspect a lot of time would be spent on points of information, not to mention time spent in the inevitable arguments over what's a big deal and what isn't.

        Someday, there will be a nice content management system for apportioning texts of these giant bills to staffers/experts/etc at the ready to pull them apart.. Honestly, I bet over at the Congress they're still parcelling out hard copies of text files, right?

        on strike.

        by daria g on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:26:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In Practice (none / 0)

        You're right.  For anyone to actually understand what they're reading they'd have to also have the entire U.S. Code on hand ad look up every cross reference.  The code is available on-line but slogging through that shit is hard sledding, especially if you don't know what you're looking for and you aren't particularly interested in what you're reading.

        This aggression will not stand, man.

        by kaleidescope on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 05:28:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Unfortunately... (4.00 / 2)

        ..."plain language" creates its own set of problems.  I'm involved in contract negotiations and writing, which is something akin to writing laws, and there are legitimate reasons for writing something the way it is.

        The problem is that the English language, like many others, isn't precise.  A lot of our communication uses context to transmit information in addition to what we are writing or saying, and while that works fine at the moment or the near future, further on, someone reading what was written who might not be aware of the context might not understand what was meant.  In the worse case, they might substitute their own meaning.  It would be perfectly legitimate, but was not what the original writers intended.

        "Legal language" gets around this by using strict forms or sentence structure, reference to other applicable documents, using archaic English, Latin or French terms that have a precise legal meaning, and so on.

        A good example of how "plain language" can screw things up is provided by your own Constitution.  Second Amendment, specifically.  The way it's written is interpreted differently by different people, usually depending on their philosophical viewpoint.  It's not precise.  What's "the militia"?  What does "Well regulated" mean?  Is there a membership link between the militia and the right to bear arms?  Who defines what is a militia and what isn't, and who regulates it or not?

        by Northwatch on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:50:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Might find (none / 0)

      that law students would eat that up.  The junkies would for sure.

      Justice For All

      by Mean Green on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:52:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thoughts on the how (4.00 / 2)

        Law professors might be the place to start.

        Get a couple of professors and a few law student blogger friendly types who could get credit for starting a new law school org, then let them outreach to other law schools and get a national network going.

        Almost a "real time" law review in that there's research and an output end product.

        Not much prestige compared to th journals, but there is something in "being the first" that can look good on the initiative front.  Something students can talk about in interviews.

        A number of law students have worked on the Hill.  Some want to use their degree as a leverage into politics.

        Strt with the DC schools: G'town, GMU, Maryland, American, etc.  Coordinate with the law school democrats.

        Just some thoughts.

        FiveThirtyEight.com

        by PocketNines on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 05:51:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Keep this idea going..... (none / 0)

      how can we get this done and not let this idea drop once this tread dies?  Who can take this forward to Kos or others?  I'm sure there are lots of people who would help, and some of the best would be those who deal with verbage like this on a daily basis in their work (attorneys, contract administrators,etc.)  

      by question everything on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 03:39:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not sure how (none / 0)

        It probably would take a lot of work and need a fair bit of time from someone with legislative knowledge and blog programming knowledge to do it well.  I think Dems should tackle it early because others will probably figure out a system for this soon if they haven't already.

        by avoter on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 05:18:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How to.... (4.00 / 2)

        It would require:

        a) A spark.  Someone on the Hill with access to a downloadable version of the bill has to alert the troops;
        b) Troops.  Best organized around a separate blog, I would think, so as to keep everything straight and off the dKos servers, which are clogging on this right now!
        c) Supply lines.  IM or text messaging is fastest, but a list serv is best way to get the word out.  IM or text messaging through cell phones would be good for quick communications (go; no-go kind of stuff).  The blog seems best suited for accumulating responses and getting word back to the hill
        d) Response from the Spark.  We need to see results and know the effort is worthwhile.  Remarks on the floor, response on the blog from staffers, suggestions for improvement, etc.

        This is the single best idea I've seen for making use of our collective power.  Law students, law profs, and lawyers alike should eat this up.

        I, for one, am.

        We will keep marching toward that one America, and we're not going to stop until we get there.

        by tlee61 on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 07:26:35 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  blog checking? how about listserv plus blog? (none / 1)

      It's hard to be organized about bill-checking, especially on a blog that has unpredictable visitation.  How would you make sure you got the parts all distributed out?

      Better would be to use a data-merged listserv with many, many more participants than there would be parts to a bill.  A big group like MoveOn could do this very effectively.  Parts could be distributed, say each part to fifty different people, by email.  That way, each part would be seen at least a few times.

      Really icky stuff could be reported to a blog, and a blog admin could email juicy results out to the listserv.

      Why, no ... I'm not voting for John McCain.

      by by foot on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:18:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about MoveOn (none / 0)

        Yeah - good idea.....I know MoveOn has what are like volunteer subgroups who work on particular "projects" as needed. On Sunday I'll try to connect with them on this idea and if I get response I'll be back. If others of you are members it would help I'd think to send too....the more voices on this idea the better!

        by question everything on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:47:18 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  How about... (none / 1)

        A modified Wiki, with immutable text (the bill) on top and a Wiki of annotations below ? Whenever a new bill is posted, it can be chopped up and people on a mailing list notified with the segment they are assigned (I agree, e-mail 50 people per segment... some people do have lives -- even if only occasionally). Entries/segments can be flagged as "stinky". Trusted users can assign a higher level of "stinkiness". An automated system can then give "top 50 stinky", open for review to all. If I were a Democratic congressperson, I would have that puppy bookmarked.

        Here's a title for that page: "Legislative conscience of America". Wait, can I trademark that?

        by Sjoerd on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:56:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  And more staffers needed too (none / 0)

          Are there limits on the number of staff that congress people can have? Can their salaries be funded by organizations like MoveOn? Seems to me that Dems could use more full-time expertise around to keep track of these bills -- maybe also a "night staff" who are as knowledgeable as the "day staff". Also, if bloggers were to be organized to help, staff would be needed to keep this up and going.

          Do not go gentle into that good night. Blog, blog against the dying of the light. CathiefromCanada

          by CathiefromCanada on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 09:36:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  There's a 4 in your tipjar (none / 0)

      for that one...

      nice...

      -9.13, -7.79 When you pray, move your feet. -African Proverb

      by L0kI on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 06:32:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's gonna be a long night... (none / 1)

    in the Senate. Heh, heh, heh.  This is a really underhanded, slimey thing to do, even for ReThugs.  Go DEMS!  

    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

    by TheOtherWashington on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:28:42 PM PDT

  •  It will pass (3.00 / 2)

    There is no way they will hold up the budget because of these provisions.  It will pass.

    Somehow Frist will compromise, there will be a debate the Weldon provisions after the holidays and have an up or down vote on them.

    The Democrats will agree to this.

    by mikel1814 on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:31:13 PM PDT

    •  McCain (none / 1)

      It's more than the Weldon piece.

      It doesn't sound to me like McCain is happy with this bill, or the dirty tactics being used here.

      And there's been a bunch of Repubs backtracking on how the Tax Return piece even got in there (apparently two "staffers"). Although Feinstein is right now calling that idea crap.

      by cscs on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:41:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's already happened re: the abotion provision (none / 1)

      I just heard on All Things Considered that Boxer had decided to back off protesting the abortion provision in exchange for a vote by early March of next year on the amendment.

      She brokered this deal with Frist, so I'm not sanguine about the fate of the vote. Since the IRS provision seems to have riled up members of the republican caucus in the Senate, it might disappear before the bill is voted on.

      Given the size of this bill, I'm sure there are a number of other surprises that the staffers have missed.

      It's going to be a long two years.

      I listen to wingnut radio so you don't have to!

      by Sharon on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:52:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Frist will Fuck her Over (none / 0)

        These people are not to be trusted. I was at a speech by Rep. Bobby Etheridge (D-NC) where he just went off on the Republicans for screwing him and others on deals like this. Up or down by March? Fuck that. Debate it now. Vote on it now. What's there to figure out?

        by redsoxkangaroo on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 04:12:26 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  re (4.00 / 3)

    I can see this information (tax info) being used on a district attorney in texas - Senator Diane Fienstein.

    WHOOOOO!

    "Obama / Steve Holt '08!" - Steve Holt

    by cookiesandmilk on Sat Nov 20, 2004 at 02:40:46 PM PDT