Sunday, July 05, 2009

New catch phrase for our time

Paul Miller has a great op-ed piece that looks at what our founders fought for 233 years ago.

We're all familiar with 'no taxation without representation' and today many justify outrageous taxation on the grounds that it's okay simply because our 'representatives' have approved it.

I like the phrase 'no taxation without information,' which Miller, and others, use. But he gives us an additional one that I think will get much more play:

Stop ramming it through before the people can review.

It's a message all in Congress need to hear - loudly!

6 comments:

Tim Higgins said...

Maggie,

How about, "If one of you writes it, the rest of you have to read it." as an alternative.

Or perhaps, "Only small legislators make huge laws."

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

Maggie,

"I like the phrase 'no taxation without information,' which Miller, and others, use. But he gives us an additional one that I think will get much more play:

Stop ramming it through before the people can review.


It's a message all in Congress need to hear - loudly! "



I like both your suggestions as well as Tim's, but I'd like to add:

If you write it, you must read it, aloud, in full session, so an economy of both words and deeds on your part will be greatly appreciated by your fellow law makers as well as your constituents, who will eventually get stuck paying the bills...

Maggie Thurber said...

Hooda (Dave) ...

You might want to check out the link in my left-hand column 'Read the bill!'

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

Maggie,

I did as you suggested and was redirected to the group proposing a 72 hour rule, which makes sense but does not come close to what I am suggesting; reading the full bill and any/all CHRISTmas tree ornaments into the record.

My process for this was twofold.

1. To make the originator of the bill go on record as knowing the full impact of the legislation.

-and-

2. To fully realize what has been hung on his/her bill that somebody expects to gain a free ride from.

It also has a couple of secondary side effects.

1, It slows down the process enough to make everyone aware as to what the bill proposes, giving them time to asl questions and (gasp) deliberate before voting.

-and-

2, It gives the proponent a chance to hear just how stupid the bill may sound when spoken (by them) aloud, for all to hear.

All in all I think reading the pending bill out loud would be a very good thing.

Maggie Thurber said...

well, it's been a bit since I used the link so the 72-hour thing is somewhat new.

They had advocated for the bills to be read.

I'm with you on this one, Hooda...

Hooda Thunkit (Dave Zawodny) said...

Thanks for clarifying.

(I had assumed that I had "stepped in it," and i was right.

But I prefer to think of it as great minds thinking alike :-)

Google Analytics Alternative