This sounds like such a bad idea

[unixronin]

CNET reports on a new initiative for the IRS to make better use of the Internet.  The following paragraph leaped out at me:

Complicating the situation is the Senate committee's unusual step of voting on a summary of the tax bill -- but not on the actual text, which has yet to be written.  That means the final wording of the legislation is still up in the air, even though it's awaiting a floor vote.

Granted, there's time for the final legislation to actually get drafted before it reaches the Senate floor.  Assuming the Senate reads it.  But it just seems to me like a really bad idea to have even a Senate subcommittee voting on a bill that hasn't actually been written yet.  It seems to me this opens up the possibility of the IRS having a pre-approved bill that they can then write whatever they want into.

And given the past track record of the IRS in harrassment and abuses, that's an unsettling idea.

Comments

[gdmusumeci.livejournal.com]

That sounds rather backwards. How can you vote on something if you don't know exactly what it will say? Then again, I think the entire legal code is really far too obfuscated for anyone's good.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

My point exactly ... and I agree about the legal code. It's time to pile it all up, burn it, and start over.

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

Time to move to Iceland and the Althing! :-)

[cymrullewes.livejournal.com]

http://www.ccpgames.com/jobs/default.asp

[sierra-nevada.livejournal.com]

This sounds illegal prima facia.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

It does rather, doesn't it? But since when has Congress let that stop them, particularly in this administration?

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

That is not really surprising given the rest of the stunts congress is pulling. The next most egregious offense is voting on bills twelve hours or less after they get out of committee. (Some of these suckers are over 900 pages.) Who can possible know what they are voting on when they vote?

There are a few more instituted by Tom Delay. Thanks Tom. Read, "The Broken Branch". There is a significant list of things gone to hell before you even need to talk about the administration.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

That gives me an interesting idea.

Suppose the rules and procedures for passing bills through Congress were modified by adding a provision such that whenever a bill is presented for a floor vote in the House or Seante, opponents of the bill have the option of challenging supporters of the bill to prove that they actually know what they're voting for. They would do this by selecting a number of supporters (who may not be authors) of the bill to quiz on the content of the bill for a reasonable period -- say, not to exceed one hour. If it becomes apparent during the course of this challenge that the bill's supporters are not actually familiar with its contents, then the bill must be remanded for further study for a period of not less than (say) three days, during which the members are expected to actually READ it. This procedure may be repeated each time a bill is presented for a floor vote.

It should prevent the critters being able to vote on bills that they've merely glanced at the summary of, or have simply been told to support. On the other hand, if they really have read the bill, and know what they're voting on, then it will not delay the bill by more than an hour.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Simply going back to the old rules, in effect for a couple of centuries, will fix the problem. This is a deliberate ploy to prevent people from really reading the bill. It is not the only one by any means.

In programming terms, we would be bolting a kludge on a kludge. The best option is to remove the first kludge and let the elegance of the original rules prevail.

The biggest advantage of your system would be that it will stop any bills from being passed until the system is fixed. Many times, I have thought that gridlock in congress is a Good Thing (tm). (See Sam L. Clemens for further commentary.)