Below is a headline from a December 29, 2022 column from econ writer, Michael Shedlock, who writes as Mish. The column is worth reading, but we beat him to the punch.
Congress Will Pass Ugly $1.65 Trillion, 4,155-Page Bill Members Will Never Read
Below is my column from the September, 2009 Sturbridge Times. All I can say is, “Same as it ever was.”
In Law, Less is More, More or Less
On the 24th of July a congressman created a small controversy by telling an obvious truth. The Honorable John Conyers (D-MI) told America that he and his colleagues did not read the bills they passed. “I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers. “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?” he said.
So the health reform bill, that Mr. Conyers supports, is over 1000 pages. It did not start there. The Patriot Act was well over a hundred. The TARP (bailout) bill over 150 pages. Do you think they read those bill? More likely they told their staff to summarize it for them.
We constituents are paying our solons $174,000 plus benefits to not read bills. My first reaction was, I can do that job.
Reaction turned to indignation, however, when I realized there was no way I could get that “work.” Also, I knew as a citizen there is an obligation to think of the welfare of the whole polity.
It was at that point I decided to call on the services of the Long Hill Institute of Public Policy (LHIPP). In the April, 2009 Musings From Long Hill, We organized LHIPP as our official think tank and promptly solved all the nations economic problems. Unfortunately, no one in government took up our suggestions and thus we languish in recession. No matter. LHIPP will take up legislative reform and offer to help our Congress to get to the point where they can both read and understand what they vote on.
At this point, I know my readers are smiling at my naiveté. How presumptuous of me to believe I can effect that miracle. In truth, I would never claim to be able to work such magic on my own. No, I appeal to one of the great literary figures of our civilization.
Jonathan Swift wrote what may be the greatest book on government and politics ever written. Unfortunately, most of the world thinks Gulliver’s Travels merely children’s literature. We always have in our minds the illustration of Gulliver being tied down by the Lilliputians.
Swift did not write a child’s book. He was writing for an adult audience about problems of state. Many of the situations he described persist into our time.
In Part II, Chapter VII, A Voyage to Brobdingnag (the giants) Gulliver tries to instruct the king in the practices of English political art. His Majesty is not impressed. The comparison is not in the Brit’s favor. According to their king, the Brobdingnagian theory of government is as related by Gulliver,
“He confined the Knowledge of Governing within very narrow Bounds; to common Sense and Reason, to Justice and Lenity, to the speedy Determination of civil and criminal Causes; with some other obvious Topicks, which are not worth considering. And, he gave it for his Opinion, that whoever could make two Ears of Corn, or two blades of Grass to grow upon a Spot of Ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of Mankind, and do more essential Service to his Country than the whole Race of Politicians put together.”
I don’t think we come off any better than Old England as well.
But, as much as I was struck by the common sense government of Brobdingnag, It was in my capacity representing LHIPP that I found the true diamond in Dean Swifts magnum opus.
“No Law of that Country must exceed in Words the Number of Letters in their Alphabet, which consists only of two and twenty. But, indeed, few of them extend even to that Length. They are expressed in the most plain and simple Terms, wherein those People are not mercurial enough to discover above one Interpretation: And to write a Comment upon any Law is a capital Crime. As to the Decision of civil Causes, or Proceedings against Criminals, their Precedents are so few, that they have little Reason to boast of any extraordinary Skill in either.”
Now there are advantages and disadvantages to adopting an “honesty in legislation” rule as above. First and foremost would be, “what you see is what you get” with any law. Second, Supreme Court sessions would last, oh maybe an hour and a half, not merely because a comment would court execution. Limiting verbiage in legislation would lead anyone trying to interpret merely on their own biases to look the fool. Not that that has not happened, but with few words, it would not be as easy.
The disadvantages would be any complex legislation would not happen. Yeah, you won’t see a health care act.
Still, we at LHIPP feel it is important to start somewhere. You think bills are not going to get bigger? If we don’t stop this now, we shall someday see Congress pass the National Anti Jaywalking and Litter Control Statute running to 10,000 pages.