Democratic senator: Of course I’m not going to read the ObamaCare bill

posted at 3:07 pm on October 2, 2009 by Allahpundit

A fascinating moment of candor captured by CNS, ostensibly offered as proof that Carper’s lazy but actually much more troubling than that. If this were a simple case of a senator showing disinterest in his work, the problem’s easily solved: Vote him out and get a new senator. The thing is, he’s right about legislative language being incomprehensible, especially when, as in the case of ObamaCare, the subject matter has to be reconciled with so many other provisions of existing commercial law. Essentially, it’s an endless labyrinth of cross-referencing other statutes; you’d have to have the entire U.S. Code in front of you to follow the language accurately (or, better yet, a point-and-click version on the Internet) and even then your eyes would glaze over in short order from trying to keep track of it all. Point being, federal law long ago reached the point of bloat and bureaucracy where even legislators can’t digest it. The most they can do is trust the staffers who actually write the stuff to harmonize it well enough that unintended consequences are kept to a minimum. How you address that problem — starting with the tax code, natch — I have no idea.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Kill the bills. All of them. There is no trust.

elduende on October 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM

He’s the one that got appointed to Biden’s seat?

Kelligan on October 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM

Of course it’s gibberish…

PatriotRider on October 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM

I think he has a good point. He is just acknowledging how far Washington is from the people and common sense, though he does not realize it.

Theworldisnotenough on October 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM

It would help tremendously if the majority of our representatives weren’t idiots.

The Calibur on October 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM

It’s mean’t to be gibberish….if no one understands it then the implementers can do anything they want to later.

PatriotRider on October 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM

Houston, we have a problem.

ElectricPhase on October 2, 2009 at 3:12 PM

How you address that problem — starting with the tax code, natch — I have no idea.

Here’s a revolutionary idea: use the tax code to — wait for it — collect taxes! If you want social engineering, write legislation that directly addresses the specific issue at hand, but pull that stuff out of the tax code.

jwolf on October 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM

What do we pay you for again?
Oh yeah, that’s right – reading and voting on legislation.

Vashta.Nerada on October 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM

Did Senator Incomprehensible tell “Necklace” that that was a good question to ask? I didn’t understand.

redwhiteblue on October 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM

In Rush to Pass 1,000-Page Health Care Bill, Congress Accidentally Enacts Walton, Indiana, Yellow Pages: http://optoons.blogspot.com/2009/08/in-rush-to-pass-1000-page-health-care.html

Mervis Winter on October 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM

Maybe we should get some additional lawyers in Congress who can read this stuff…..Oh, wait, my bad.

hip shot on October 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Point being, federal law long ago reached the point of bloat and bureaucracy where even legislators can’t digest it

Actually, the point is that they are legislating far too many things that they have no right to. Follow the Texas example – one six month session every two years, and for the rest of the time, they get a real job.

Vashta.Nerada on October 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM

A fascinating moment of candor captured by CNS, ostensibly offered as proof that Carper’s lazy but actually much more troubling than that. If this were a simple case of a senator showing disinterest in his work, the problem’s easily solved: Vote him out and get a new senator. The thing is, he’s right about legislative language being incomprehensible, especially when, as in the case of ObamaCare, the subject matter has to be reconciled with so many other provisions of existing commercial law.

No, he’s not the one that got appointed to Biden’s seat. He was a two-term governor of Delaware and now is in his — what — 10th year as senator? So, to AllahP’s point, he will never just get “voted out” as senator. Not in Delaware.

And Carper is lazy as hell — even the local liberal talk radio guys here in Delaware will tell you that. He’s probably never drawn a private sector paycheck in his life.

BigD on October 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM

So the senator is basically saying it’s an unintelligible piece of gobbledygook and nonsense. NO ONE can read it and make sense of it. How in heck do they pass something NO ONE comprehends? How do you enforce it?

Guardian on October 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM

I had a professor laugh about grading papers. There were only 9 of us in a 6 week summer course taking diferential equations so there wasn’t a TA.

“Grade papers? Ha, they don’t pay me enough for that.”

Ok Jackass. Guess why you are teaching a summer course at 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm three times a week? I’m guessing he arbitrarily just assigned grades. The guy also asked the class if anyone had voted for Bush on the first day.

This guy reminds me of that professor.

jhffmn on October 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM

How you address that problem — starting with the tax code, natch — I have no idea.

Start from scratch. Make Congress have to rewrite existing laws, that should simplify things as well as keep them too busy redoing criminal laws so that they won’t have time to take over our health care.

rbj on October 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Yeah, it’s gibberish but they’d certainly hang us with those gibberish words if it suited them. They meaning the federal govt of course.

Oink on October 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM

I couldn’t sleep last night (reminds me to go buy some Goldschlager today) so I turned on the tv and saw stretch’s weekly press conference. I was amazed to find out that if OdumbassCare isn’t passed, there will be over 60,000,000 people uninsured within the next few years. Stretch also said that there WILL be a public option in the House bill and that the Republicans have no plan. How do these people get away with lying? I just don’t get it.

txag92 on October 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM

This is a lot bigger problem than that… It actually goes hand in hand with an article highlighted here on Hotair the other day where someone pointed out that we all commit at least 3 felonies a day.

We’re not all criminals, the problem is, ignorance of the law almost HAS to be a defense now, because no rational person could guess what is and isn’t against the law anymore.

The very foundation of rule of law is faltering, and until congress starts cleaning up its mess, we’re screwed.

WashingtonsWake on October 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM

How you address that problem — starting with the tax code, natch — I have no idea

Giant paper shredder for all previous laws?

WashJeff on October 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM

And Carper is lazy as hell — even the local liberal talk radio guys here in Delaware will tell you that. He’s probably never drawn a private sector paycheck in his life.

BigD on October 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Did I mention he is also GOOFY? As in not smart. A few years back, he came and talked to a manufacturing trade group I was involved with at our annual meeting in D.C. He said two things of substance: that he favors business growth for the primary purpose of providing tax money, and that he is against tort reform generally. The rest of his remarks were devoted to anecdotes about Robert Byrd.

BigD on October 2, 2009 at 3:21 PM

Between this stooge and Teacups, this week will mark the death of ObamaCare.

JammieWearingFool on October 2, 2009 at 3:21 PM

the Texas example – one six month session every two years, and for the rest of the time, they get a real job.

Vashta.Nerada on October 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM

Or the Kentucky example – one six-week session a year. Real jobs, all of them.

SteelGuy on October 2, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Math is hard!

sacfly on October 2, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Actually the U.S. Code is only partially helpful since it is only the evidence of the law. The actual law for many of the titles in the U.S. Code needs to be squared with the Statutes at Large.

taney71 on October 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM

So why vote for it then?

CP on October 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM

there will be over 60,000,000 people uninsured within the next few years.
txag92 on October 2, 2009 at 3:20 PM

That’s a lot of illiegals coming back. I recommended a bunch of signs on the Rio Grande that state the Brazil needs to build a bunch of stadiums for the 2014 World Cup and 2016 Olympics, the jobs are to your south.

WashJeff on October 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM

Reading is fundamental.

saint kansas on October 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Essentially, it’s an endless labyrinth of cross-referencing other statutes; you’d have to have the entire U.S. Code in front of you to follow the language accurately….

One of the big fricking problems: why in the frack does a healthcare bill have anything to do with the Internal Revenue Code? Yes, I know that Dems are tying much of the funding and enforcement to provisions that they’ll house in the Internal Revenue Code, but that raises the underlying question again.

C’mon, Congress. Who the hell do you people think you are?

BuckeyeSam on October 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM

So who IS writing the legislative language? Who edits what they write to make sure it complies with the original intent? What’s to stop someone from using the fog in the “legislative language” to write themselves a large check or take away civil liberties? Government totally run amok…

sacfly on October 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM

The staffers intentional write it that way so they can exit the revolving doors into extremely lucrative positions telling companies what hoops they need to jump through to comply with the BS they themselves wrote.

pedestrian on October 2, 2009 at 3:26 PM

No need to read the bill, just vote the Party line. The Party will tell you what it all means. The Party will administer the programs. The Party will decide who is rewarded.

Party loyalty is now the standard of the day.

Skandia Recluse on October 2, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Democratic senator: Of course I’m not going to read the ObamaCare bill

Seriously? If you don’t read it, don’t vote on it. But it’s 20,000 pages you say? Then cut it down; keep it simple. Get rid of the amendments. Then read the f’n bill!

Why do we tolerate politicians like this? Fire them all.

Mangy Scot on October 2, 2009 at 3:29 PM

Does anyone think he’s lying and he really is going to read the bill.

rjoco1 on October 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM

If the bill is incomprehensible, then how do you enforce the law?

If the bill is not understandable, how do you budget it?

Kini on October 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Does anyone think he’s lying and he really is going to read the bill.

rjoco1 on October 2, 2009 at 3:30 PM

No. For once I belive a politician. He won’t read it.

Mangy Scot on October 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM

If the bill is incomprehensible, then how do you enforce the law?

If the bill is not understandable, how do you budget it?

Kini on October 2, 2009 at 3:32 PM

Easy. The way you want to.

ElectricPhase on October 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM

Easy. The way you want to.

ElectricPhase on October 2, 2009 at 3:33 PM

You mean just make stuff up?
Like the way we print money?

Kini on October 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM

You mean just make stuff up?
Like the way we print money?

Kini on October 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Now you’re gettin’ it.

ElectricPhase on October 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM

Math is hard!

sacfly on October 2, 2009 at 3:22 PM

Apparently, so is reading

Kini on October 2, 2009 at 3:36 PM

How you address that problem — starting with the tax code, natch — I have no idea.

Form a strong political movement–across party lines if at all possible–bent on reducing Federal power. You either need to reduce the plenary power of Congress (say, perhaps through a Constitutional amendment which removes the Commerce Clause and replaces it with language which precludes Congress from acting as broadly as it had in the past, etc), or elect a strong majority of legislators who believe it is incumbent upon themselves to repeal broad swaths of federal legislation.

Short of a revolution, there is no other way.

Revenant on October 2, 2009 at 3:37 PM

WashJeff on October 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM

LOL!

txag92 on October 2, 2009 at 3:37 PM

If anyone thought that we as a country are heading smack dab into the jungle of a banana republic, then I think it’s worst. This jungle of incomprehensible legislation is going to choke this country to death.

Kini on October 2, 2009 at 3:41 PM

Did I mention he is also GOOFY? As in not smart. A few years back, he came and talked to a manufacturing trade group I was involved with at our annual meeting in D.C. He said two things of substance: that he favors business growth for the primary purpose of providing tax money, and that he is against tort reform generally. The rest of his remarks were devoted to anecdotes about Robert Byrd.

BigD on October 2, 2009 at 3:21 PM

So, he’s basically Joe Biden’s clone???

BigWyo on October 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

This exemplifies the dichotomy of a Logocracy:

Those who know what the words mean directing those who have the authority to make it law.

SnowSun on October 2, 2009 at 3:49 PM

Listening to the Senator talk almost made me doze off.

I think I’ve seen rocks with more energy than that guy.

But, I get that he intends to read the ‘plain english’ version once it is available. Just not the incomprehensible legislative language version.

Why don’t they just write it in plain english in the first place for EVERYONE to read and understand? I guess that would make sense though, so, nevermind the question.

SilverStar830 on October 2, 2009 at 3:50 PM

This guy is another poster child for term limits. Arrogant, out of touch with taxpayers. Pathetic.

marklmail on October 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM

Why do we even have Delaware around anymore? Seriously.

SouthernGent on October 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM

So, he’s basically Joe Biden’s clone???

BigWyo on October 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM

Let’s just say they’re both alike in that they have no idea how vapid and stupid they sound.

BigD on October 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM

I hope they get so much incomprehensible legislation they sink into a hole in the ground. Call it a stink hole.

rlwo2008 on October 2, 2009 at 3:55 PM

Why do we even have Delaware around anymore? Seriously.

SouthernGent on October 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM

To provide government jobs. The state government is the largest employer by a few thousand, and that’s just the state government == no counties, cities, etc.

We are hideously over-governed here.

BigD on October 2, 2009 at 3:55 PM

The most they can do is trust the staffers who actually write the stuff to harmonize it well enough that unintended consequences are kept to a minimum.

Hey AP, if I can read it he can read it. His statements are extremely disgusting and disturbing. What sort of TRASH do people elect to government.

It took me a few hours and I took five pages of notes. That is the least this sh!t for brains should do for the money we pay him.

dogsoldier on October 2, 2009 at 4:02 PM

You little people should know better.If we read this bill and you found out we could never say we did not know that was in the bill.But most of all if you little people found out what was really in this bill you would tar and feather all of us and run us out of town on a rail.

thmcbb on October 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM

This level of deliberate complexity is so that truly draconian policies can be formulated/more clearly annunciated, via the regulatory bureaucratic regime of Cass Sunstein.

The intent is top pass legislative gibberish that can then be deciphered as Sunstein sees fit inj his effort to “nudge” the population where it does not wish to go. To treat the electorate as Steven Chu stated as unruly teen-agers.

Its like a parent trying to trick a child into agreeing to an early bed-time.

Archimedes on October 2, 2009 at 4:09 PM

How you address that problem

Scrap it all and start over. It’s the only option.

MarkTheGreat on October 2, 2009 at 4:12 PM

It is quite clear to me that these people who wish to shove such convoluted legislation down our throats are friends only to power, and enemies of the people.

flyfishingdad on October 2, 2009 at 4:20 PM

One rather wonderful option would be to specifically forbid members of the bar from legislative office. Lawyers, while generally honorable wonderful people are like foxes in the henhouse when they write laws. The way that they make sure they create tons of new business for themselves is really unacceptable.

WashingtonsWake on October 2, 2009 at 4:23 PM

Vote every bill down that isn’t easy to understand and of a reasonable length.

ReneePA on October 2, 2009 at 4:27 PM

One rather wonderful option would be to specifically forbid members of the bar from legislative office. Lawyers, while generally honorable wonderful people are like foxes in the henhouse when they write laws. The way that they make sure they create tons of new business for themselves is really unacceptable.

If you did that, then the staffers would all be lawyers, and write the bills. If you stopped the staffers from being it, the Congressmen would take the bills wholesale from lobbyiests, who would write the bills and give it to the staffers/Congressmen along with donations. Hell, thats what happens today.

The only way to stop it is to get at its root. Federal power needs to be curtailed. The only ones who can curtail it are the people. The people must either elect representatives who are going to repeal the legislation, or change the Constitution, so that the Congress cannot.

When push comes to shove, not nearly enough people are willing to take that drastic a step. Many people are quite pleased and happy with our strong centralized government, even if they do not always agree with the details. If you want change, those people need to be convinced otherwise.

Revenant on October 2, 2009 at 4:30 PM

Seems to me we should be sure that Congressmen and women actually WRITE the bills that they will vote on let alone READ the bills. People in Van Jones’ communist group and/or union members wrote the Porkulus bill that Congress didn’t read. Obama promised no lobbyists in his administration, but not only did he break that promise. THEY ARE WRITING THE BILLS! If it can’t pass that Congress write test and the understanding test it shouldn’t even be considered. If that is too much for Congress to handle then they should crush the lawyer lobby and write bills in plain English and make sure they are enforced in plain English rather than legaleze.

Christian Conservative on October 2, 2009 at 4:33 PM

Let’s see, Congress can MANDATE that credit card companies write their contracts in understandable ENGLISH. Yet ‘the greatest deliberative body in the world’ has to settle for laws written in bureaucratic legalize. Is that it?

GarandFan on October 2, 2009 at 4:36 PM

Leaving it to staffers is unacceptable, especially now, when the bills are written by special interest groups like SEIU and when the staffers are radical liberal statists.

GaltBlvnAtty on October 2, 2009 at 4:39 PM

He’s the one that got appointed to Biden’s seat?
Kelligan on October 2, 2009 at 3:10 PM

No, that was the other moron.

Akzed on October 2, 2009 at 4:43 PM

If the bill’s incomprehensible, how in f***’s name does Senator Reading-Isn’t-Fundamental expect the dirty peasants to understand it.

So as to abide by it.

So as to stay out of f***in’ prison.

Forget three felonies a day — we’re goin’ to five…

Tongueboy on October 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM

jhffmn on October 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM

Ugh. That would have sucked.
I never took DifEq officially-but that’s what my Hydrogeology class was.
I thank God NONE of my geology professors at UWYO talked about politics.
There were too interested in actually educating us about geology.
Go figure.

Badger40 on October 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Forget three felonies a day — we’re goin’ to five…

Tongueboy on October 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Heh.
I bet I commit more than that a day.
But who’s counting.

Badger40 on October 2, 2009 at 4:47 PM

If the bill’s incomprehensible, how in f***’s name does Senator Reading-Isn’t-Fundamental expect the dirty peasants to understand it.

So as to abide by it.

So as to stay out of f***in’ prison.

Forget three felonies a day — we’re goin’ to five…

You’re not expected to understand it either. Instead, it will go to a federal agency, whose job will be to “interpret” the bill, and promulgate Rules and Regulations. They will spend years, if not decades, figuring out what the bill means, while Congress whistles past. If something should go wrong, Congress will be righteously outraged and vow to make minute changes to the language.

The agency heads, governmental employees and the courts are the only ones who need to figure out what it means.

I would wager that many Congressmen are somewhat confused when constituents ask them if they have read and understand the bill or not. Thats not their job, you see. Their job is to fundraise.

Revenant on October 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM

“Point being, federal law long ago reached the point of bloat and bureaucracy where even legislators can’t digest it.”

Burn them all…

… Start over.

Seven Percent Solution on October 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM

Simple solution:

You just write a plain English preamble to the gobblty-gook portion. In the preamble you state exactly what the bill is supposed to do. You also state unequivocally that anything in the gobblty-gook portion that is not included in or violates the preamble is null and void. Then you can argue over something that everybody can read and understand.

Knott Buyinit on October 2, 2009 at 4:58 PM

Funny…this bill is allegedly too complex and confusing for a bunch of lawyers and politicians to understand…but us rank and file Americans are supposed to abide by it?!?

ynot4tony2 on October 2, 2009 at 5:01 PM

This CNS reporter has got to learn how to nail the point. Carper kept deflecting his question about whether Republicans should read the bill or be able to read the bill etc. etc. Carper kept disingenuously acting as thought the question was about whether they had the ability to read and understand or would want to (as opposed to learning its content more effectively through plain English interpretations). When interpreted that way Carper appeared reasonable in saying no one would want to.

The reporter has to learn to say, “that’s not the question. The question is whether the American people have the right to have the bill available. It’s there decision as to whether or not they want to read it. Not yours. CNS shouldn’t waste its access and our time if they keep missing lay ups. They also lose the game.

livetsown on October 2, 2009 at 5:06 PM

Now look, ‘ole Tom Carper knows best. And anyway, most Delawareans are trained to do as they are told. It’s why I left……………

khacha on October 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM

This is why I hate and detest lawyers – this is what happens when they get put in charge of anything.

I remember during Operation Enduring Freedom my ship came across an Iraqi smuggler in the Gulf. Clearly this guy was violating UN sanctions and we outfitted to board his damn ship and take it – but …

We had to call the lawyers in Bahrain to get clearance.

Took them more than two hours to make a decision and clear us to board the ole’ boy and by then – he was safe and sound in Iranian waters.

Three days later – we embarrassed the Iranian’s by saying here was this smuggler still hanging out in their waters – unchallenged by them for three days.

The Iranians came over the horizon and pumped 10 5 inch shells into his pilot house. Problem solved.

Iranians don’t have to deal with lawyers.

HondaV65 on October 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM

HHHMMMM It took me 3xs to read through it but, I understood as many other americans what was in the HC bill……So the problem is exactly what oh wait laziness & excuses! Aren’t most of these guys lawyers and what is legislative language oh yeah silly me it is legalese!!!!!!!!!

Throw the BUMS OUT!!!! They obviously can’t & won’t do their JOBS!

As our once president it’s hard!

xler8bmw on October 2, 2009 at 5:53 PM

on a side note, we have a little lawer show on every sunday morning, and I was listening to them discuss term limits and how they arent helping our economy(Michigan), and also that there aren’t enough lawers in office that can write and make sense of the laws….I asked myself…is it neccessary to make them so freakin complicated that only lawers can make sense of them? Like a previous poster once said…they managed the constitution on 2 sides

TheVer on October 2, 2009 at 6:05 PM

Ugh. That would have sucked.
I never took DifEq officially-but that’s what my Hydrogeology class was.
I thank God NONE of my geology professors at UWYO talked about politics.
There were too interested in actually educating us about geology.
Go figure.

Badger40 on October 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM

Well, it ended up being an easy A. We had take home finals and mid terms, which are against University Policy. He asked us to keep mum on that. Though the other people in the class seemed to get B’s, so maybe he was worried the evil GOPer, me, would rat him out.

It’s that complete disregard for your job and the people you work for I see in this Senator.

jhffmn on October 2, 2009 at 6:06 PM

Hired to read bills and make decisions regarding passage of said bills through knowledge gained whilst reading them.
Refuses to read bills. States same to employer. Fired. New Employee hired.
Isn’t this how it’s spoda go? What the hell?

All he has to do is fry the damn burgers and he won’t do it. Fire him.

Army Brat on October 2, 2009 at 6:08 PM

You’ll get this healthcare bill and you will like it! Or else! Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else. Now, where were I? Oh yeah. I don’t need to read this bill. You’re going to get this bill and you’re going to like it! Or else.

Griz on October 2, 2009 at 6:26 PM

Carper’s our senior Senator; Ted Kaufman is the seatwarmer for Biden’s son, Beau.
It comes to this, Senator Carper (and any other Congresscritter who thinks as he does): if you CAN’T understand a bill, then you have no business voting YES. Do the honorable thing and RESIGN so we can replace you with someone WILLING and ABLE to do the job!

ya2daup on October 2, 2009 at 6:31 PM

While I do not doubt anything Sen. Carper has said here about incomprehensibility of legal language, he has problems on several levels:

a) Would he vote on a bill which he doesn’t understand? It seems he would.

b) If one can require health providers to provide contracts written “in plain English”, then what’s so hard about using the identical language in your own rules of order to require legislators to provide bills written “in plain English”?

unclesmrgol on October 2, 2009 at 6:43 PM

We need to seriously reduce the size and complexity of government so that even Democrats like this one can do the job without resorting to “I let the anointed Mystical Priests handle it.”

Of course, the best idea is to keep Democrats as far away from the process as possible for a while until we straighten it out again.

Good Lord, what a joke this dip is – even has a schmoozey voice like Axelrod.

ExpressoBold on October 2, 2009 at 7:29 PM

Typical liberal,

“I said it’s incomprehensible so it must be so”.

Who is he to say that “nobody” can understand the language.

We really don’t want the democrats ” real english version” because it will exclude all the corrupt hidden agenda’s such as allowing illegals to take part in this bill while telling everybody they are not.

Put the bill on line and let us make that decision Senator.
We are a lot smarter than you think.

Unless the democrats are just trying to hide their real agenda from the public by going against Obama’s campaign promises of being “transparent”.

Put the bill on line and let us read it like Obama promised during his campaign.

Baxter Greene on October 2, 2009 at 7:47 PM

Yeah, I read the transcript of this interview. And remember Rangel’s comments too. “What? You expect us to read and comprehend?” I read around 2/3 to 3/4 of the damned thing and understood most of it. Like this so-called leader, there were parts of it so arcane and unpleasant that I skipped over the “insert Title VI, sec.2, part c., paragraph 8″. But come on bud, somehow I thought you and your ilk were hired to formulate, read and understand this stuff, not just vote. Hell, I can vote. Been known to a coupla times. What do I need you for if that’s your complete vision of the job?

OK, so let me explain it to ya. It’s a jobs bill. Plain and simple, section 304 and down. Lotsa money in the way of loans, grants and scholarships, and lots of provisions for them not to be repaid, so that we can train up a lot of folks (the word “disadvantaged” gets mentioned numerous times in these sections) to provide health care services. Oh, and by the way, your buddies at SEIU represent lots of health care service providers, case you forgot.

I’m not sayin’ that as me and all the other boomers all hit the bedpan about the same time we won’t need a little help with a good wipe. There’ll be plenty of us so that jobs will be plentiful as well. But with rationing on the way, I suspect they’ll be instructed to use the “one sheet” method, maybe even have to rinse it out for a go around the ward.

But it’s OK, congressdude, you now are fully informed of that hard-to-understand HR3200 redux. Go earn your $150k+ and tell all your cronies in the Capitol you’ve had it put into plain English, and golly gee, what’s that phone number to SEIU? I’ve got a town hall coming up…..

Robert17 on October 2, 2009 at 8:47 PM

Tom Carper: Another slug that’s got to go.

seanrobins on October 2, 2009 at 10:14 PM

Easy. You just vote them ALL out and start over.

Maybe even enact legislation that limits one bill stepping on another bill, better to modify the original bill. This lazy method they’ve adopted clearly does not work.

Oh, and line item veto is needed, not that the fascist in chief would ever use THAT on a piece of progressive fascist legislation.

Spiritk9 on October 2, 2009 at 10:30 PM

If you can’t read the bill, you can’t serve in Congress.

nelsonknows on October 2, 2009 at 11:06 PM

Under all colors of law these people are committing treason. Why are our States AG’s turning a blind eye to all of this? Did they not take an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution? This is constructive fraud being committed upon the people of the United States.

0321_GUY on October 3, 2009 at 12:15 AM

Democratic senator: Of course I’m not going to read the ObamaCare bill

This seems to present an opening for anarchy. If lawmakers tell us that our written laws are incomprehensible, where does that leave the legal principle that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”??

The Twelve Tables of Rome established the principle that the law must be accessible and comprehensible to the common man. Now these idiots want to destroy the very foundation of a law-abiding society.

Those who cannot read and understand legislation, but who nevertheless continue to vote on it, should be impeached for violation of their oath of office.

landlines on October 3, 2009 at 1:24 AM

Hidden in the bill is the Necronomicon.

TwilightStruggler on October 3, 2009 at 2:33 AM

Ignorance is bliss!

OldEnglish on October 3, 2009 at 4:40 AM

This seems pretty easy to read to me:

10 SEC. 401. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE
11 HEALTH CARE COVERAGE.
12 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter A of chapter 1 of the
13 Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at
14 the end the following new part:
15 ‘‘PART VIII—HEALTH CARE RELATED TAXES
‘‘SUBPART A. TAX ON INDIVIDUALS WITHOUT ACCEPTABLE HEALTH CARE

Thats from page 167. pages 16 and 17 show how they will punt you from your “grandfathered” coverage, which only conforms to the term “Acceptable Coverage” as long as the provider doesn’t make any changes in it whatsoever.

Like I said, I read HR3200 and wrote down five pages of notes. The Senator is a LIAR. Its not that hard to read, or understand.

AP you shouldn’t be so squishy on them.

dogsoldier on October 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM

We should start a formal VOTE THEM ALL OUT! campaign. With apologies to Inhofe, DeMint, and Bachmann, get rid of them all! Replace them with people who promise to WRITE the bills and READ them and who promise to be servants of the people not vice-versa. (Just imagine how much less of the freedom-sucking bills we would have if they had to write them themselves.) Then come back with Term Limits. We need to eradicate “career politician” from the vocabulary.

Christian Conservative on October 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM