1 Great Post !

2 Congress would pass this. With an exemption for Congress.

3 Must have read Levin's new book. No new law shall pass if it impacts the economy by more than $100 million.

4 Love it. I'd add: All new bills must be read aloud to the entire Senate/ House. Anyone not there for the reading, doesn't get to vote. We're going to see a lot shorter bills that way.

5 IIRC, CBO did point out that most of the shit in the bill was a lie. And even if they didn't we were all aware that the "doc fix" would be implemented anyway. Fact is, the entire federal budget is one gigantic accounting trick. This probably only works if we demand that the government use SEC accounting standards.

6 No law can be voted on before the CBO or some other analytical office examines a bill for hidden taxes, cost-shifting, disguised subsidies, disguised taxes, mandates on businesses likely to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, etc.


What was it about the CBO that forced them to score a bill using only information in the present?  The whole thing about the "doc fix" was not a factor in their calculations because it hadn't happened yet at that point in time.  I'd make some sort of amendment where any spending redirects or accounting shifting is forced to be taken into account when scoring.

7 Shorter version:  End Withholding

Anything that doesn't allow for regulation by Adam Smith's Pimp Hand is forbidden.

8 I'd also add in...


#5.   All of the above, but first TFG will blow me.

9 2 Congress would pass this. With an exemption for Congress. Thread winnah! already.

10 This probably only works if we demand that the government use SEC accounting standards. Posted by: tsrblke PhD(c)

Constitutional Amendment right there.  Same Accounting Principles as those applied to businesses and citizens.

11 Simpler.... and with greater effect... All Laws cover everyone equally. There are no exemptions to any law. If Martha Stewart can go to jail for insider trading, then Congress, who has MUCH more access to non public information, should as well... And, no Single Law can be longer in Length, than the Constitution... which is about 4400 words...

12 add that cbo must comply with GAAP.  or whatever the normal private sector accounting rules are called  

no more cbo cheating.

13 its a non-starter until if gets a nice Orwellian acronym. 

14 I think Rand Paul is introducing similar legislation this week

15

"1. No law can be voted on before the CBO or some other analytical office examines a bill for hidden taxes, cost-shifting, disguised subsidies, disguised taxes, mandates on businesses likely to be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices, etc."

If at any time after implementation of the law it exceeds projections, it is then automatically sunsetted.

16 You forgot the part where Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are repeatedly kicked in the scrotum until I feel better. That's the part where you have to pass it to see what's in it.


Turnabout is fair play, after all. oh my aching sack...

17 4. The law is specifically made retroactive to January 1, 2010. All bills passed since 2010 (including Obamacare) are required to be re-voted after the submission of a report explaining the hidden taxes, etc. contained within the bill. ====== Lot of military spending/pay in previous bills.

18 Obama, of course, would waive that provision unilaterally.

19 Also add that ANY law that Congress passes must also apply to Congress and all government employees.

20 Honey, you went too far from the first word "proposed."  Why not just pass a law asking how everything will affect me, Kate58 (with apologies to Al Franken & SNL).  Dreaming is nice, and in a perfect world we could all just get along.  Reality's a l'il tougher, and this would have as much chance of passing as Harry Reid does to a boy scout troop.

21 Just line the bastards responsible for this atrocity in front of a wall and shoot them. That will stop this kind of behavior in the future.

22 what trailer bike said above 

he beat me to it

23 Lot of military spending/pay in previous bills.


At least those were honest in their spending projections.

24
Making the big assumption that the people in power would pass such a law, it is fine, although I would prefer the much simpler "All laws passed since Jan. 20, 2009 are hereby repealed".   Also assuming the big assumption of course.

25

I dont disagree with the idea but the ultimate responsibility is us voters.  We voted these a-holes in and we never seem to vote them out.  Look at your congressional representatives, when was the last time one of yours lost a campaign for re election?  Last president to lose re election, Bush in 92.  That was 20 F'in years ago.

 

The whole we hate congress, we hate politicians but we keep re electing the same ones.  The reason we do, in my opinion, is once someone gets in, they are able to buy our votes with our tax money.

 

Not sure the solution.

26 It's a nice idea, but as we saw recently all the laws we have to control behavior of the legislature are easily brushed aside when 'comity' demands it. (debt ceiling, requirement to deliberate on a bill for three days, etc).

27 Brilliant idea. Much like California propositions. However, in California, any proposition the citizens pass, the courts discard.

28 Shorter version: End Withholding


That's my line!

29 and what never give up wrote, too

30 So do we still get to vote for stuff? I thought that disappeared 5 years ago.

31

Protecting America From the Crooks in D.C. Act.

32 I don't believe it is constitutional. Not to mention who picks the analyses. That would be the problem. Partisan analyses can find any numbers they want.

33 "No law can be voted on before the CBO or some other analytical office examines a bill"

The fundamental problem here is that the CBO is every bit as unfit for purpose as is the rest of the federal government. It's not a magical repository of competence and honesty. It's inept and compromised and highly political.

CBO claimed that Obamacare would be a "net deficit reducer".

Then after Obamacare became law, CBO rescored it, and announced that Obamacare was, instead of reducing deficits and debt, going to add _nine hundred billion dollars_ to the debt in its first ten years of operation.

A rounding error, to be sure.

34 Why does Fox keep using the 106K signed up for Obamacare?

35 I'd go further and say that no law, tax, regulation, or executive order can have a lifespan longer than 50 years. At that point, the entire law would need to be reintroduced and follow the exact same procedures as any other bill. (i.e. no simple reauthorization - a full debate on every single law. If something makes sense, it should be a no brainer, but stupid, obsolete, or badly implemented laws would have a chance to die. This would also keep Congress so busy keeping essential laws going, they'd have very little time left to get the stupids on new ones.

36 Lies faster than a cheating Clinton! Less able than Cartet! Bigger crook than Nixon! He's OBAMAMAN!!!!!

37 Protecting America From the Crooks in D.C. Act.

Posted by: wth at November 14, 2013 02:05 PM (wAQA5)

That would just require that anyone elected to public office be immediately jailed for the length of his or her term. It's easier that way.

38 At least those were honest in their spending projections. Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 02:04 PM (GQ8sn) Oh, I agree....but would they be affected negatively by this proposition?

39 ace, #4 probably won't work. #1, while a good idea, won't do what you seek here. CBO is already a partisan agency and doesn't make correct assumptions. For instance, the ACA was "graded" on how much it would cost in the next 10 years, even though it did not actually go into effect until year 5. Thus, it was already an accounting slight-of-hand. Also, CBO grades everything statically - meaning without accounting for differences in behavior that will result from any piece of legislation. Also, the growth assumptions, etc. they use can and are easily manipulated. I agree with you in theory, but in practice I don't think this would work. Basically, you are trying to legislate honesty in politicians. It isn't going to happen. The sad reality is - if the media weren't so damn biased, this wouldn't be necessary as they would actually question numbers and report how idiotic claiming that the ACA would save money is. Politicians (really the dems) only get away with such blatant lying because the media lets them and abets them. Republicans can't get away with this type of lying because the media will always grill the GOP's claims and run those claims through a thorough investigation. Dems can claim the sky is green and the press will dutifully report it as true.

40 Posted by: Nip Sip at November 14, 2013 02:06 PM (0FSuD) I'm not sure why it wouldn't be constitutional. Except for the retroactive part. But certainly going forward it could be in place. If not as a law than as chamber rules.

41 "Would this work?" No. "Did I go to far in Point 4?" No. "I have no idea." Now you do. This wouldn't work because it still requires voter participation. LIVs vote the way they do because they don't know squat except what a biased media tells them in soundbites. Such a law might have some small impact here and there, but would just be another meaningless piece of attempted self control out of congress. The only way to truly bring the federal government back under control is to strip it of authority. The beast must be severely crippled, and then shackled. At one time it was, but people decided to just simply ignore the restraints written into our constitution. Ultimately we need to reinforce those restraints in order to prevent such debacles as ObamaCare, or worse. The federal government needs to become the state's least favorite uncle, instead of being the overbearing father, once again if we have any hope of sustaining liberty as we know it. Federalism is the only reason we have remained free.

42 the CBO had already scored this as a positive from what i remember back a couple of mths ago .

Although i realize this is so only because of the Information they were  given/brought /allowed to use.

what do we do about That?

43 Why does Fox keep using the 106K signed up for Obamacare?

Posted by: Tami at November 14, 2013 02:06 PM (bCEmE)

Because the numbers of people in the state exchanges + the number of people in the federal exchange (including those who have selected a plan but have not actually purchased it yet) = roughly 106K. Out of 300M.

44 I think this is why Roberts ruled the way he did. I think by ruling it was a "tax," he was inviting lawsuits on the basis that the tax was not properly implemented, was unconstitutional. Forcing people to buy insurance to support government programs is a back-door tax, but it was never proposed or voted on as a tax.

45

Timing of postings is  an art like popping popcorn in a microwave.   Take it out too soon and you leave a lot of unpopped kernals.   Leave it in too long and you get some burned popcorn.  

 

Lately I think we have left some unpopped kernals.  Not this one though.   I think its nuked perfectly.  

46 Won't happen. Both parties live by the hidden tax.

47 IÂ’d definitely agree to this; a simpler idea might be to simply require all bills to sunset. They can be extended permanently with no changes after, say, five years if a supermajority agrees; that is, if the bill turns out to be good, it will get more votes the second time around.

48 Because the numbers of people in the state exchanges + the number of people in the federal exchange (including those who have selected a plan but have not actually purchased it yet) = roughly 106K. Out of 300M. Posted by: GGE of the Moron Horde, NC Chapter at November 14, 2013 02:08 PM (yh0zB) So it =/ 106K people 'enrolled'!

49

But the SCOTUS can declare something a "tax" even when the word is never used in the bill.

 

How do we square that little circle?

50

We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House.

51 I notice the MFM is starting to make the switch from "Obamacare" to "ACA"

52 What??

Link at Drudge:

http://www.my9nj.com/story/23967715/njs-rich-funding-obamacare

"Little-Known Tax Funding Obamacare"

Excerpt:

Luxury real estate broker Ron Aioso says there is a tax that is rarely discussed that also helps fund Obamacare. It is a tax on high-income taxpayers when they sell their homes.

Franklin Lakes, N.J. was listed on Forbes.com in 2010 as one of "America's Most Expensive ZIP Codes", with a median home price of $1.3M.

Aioso says homeowners in a neighborhood like this could really be impacted by the Obamacare tax.

“Where we are today in a luxury area, you look and you see this home behind me, somebody like this is really affected,” he said.

If you are single with an adjusted gross income of $200,000 or file jointly with an income of $250,000 or more, you may be impacted. Once you sell your home, any profits over the first $500,000 are already subject to a capital gains tax. And now those profits will have an additional 3.8% tax to fund Obamacare...

53 How about they just follow the Constitution on how it was writtten.   Judge Roberts I'm looking at you.  

54 "How is Bill going to feed all those alcoholics? Look how many times a week Bill has popcorn for dinner. And he doesn't even pop it!" - Dale Gribble, King of the Hill

55 44 I think this is why Roberts ruled the way he did. I think by ruling it was a "tax," he was inviting lawsuits on the basis that the tax was not properly implemented, was unconstitutional. Forcing people to buy insurance to support government programs is a back-door tax, but it was never proposed or voted on as a tax. He didn't do us any favors. He could have prevented this debacle.

56 What??

Link at Drudge:

http://www.my9nj.com/story/23967715/njs-rich-funding-obamacare

"Little-Known Tax Funding Obamacare"



I think that was covered here or somewhere. 

57 Fatal flaw in your assumption, Ace.  A CBO packed with leftist dems is not going to cheat?  Really?

58 But as long as we are talking about laws that need enacting - we need a law requiring that all Agency regulations must receive an up/down vote in congress and only go into effect when approved by a vote in congress. The agencies have been given too much power and there is no real tangible check or balance on that power. Agencies are now basically writing laws rather than simply issuing regulations to enforce a law. And congress has no real power to do anything to any agency (as we see in the IRS scandal and the Fast and Furious scandal). Thus, there are basically unaccountable entities that both write their own laws, enforce their own laws and act as judges for their own laws. That has to be stopped.

59 If the CBO is fatally compromised, then it's time to find a new system.  We trusted them and they fucked us.

60 He didn't do us any favors. He could have prevented this debacle. Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at November 14, 2013 02:11 PM (uhAkr) Exactly. John Iscariot Roberts was NOT playing some kind of 3-Dimensional Chess. He caved to the Lib propagandists who were viciously attacking him. Because caving was easier than doing his duty in upholding the Constitution. Fuck that fucking traitor. Period.

61 You fucked up.  You trusted us.

62 we had a war over this......

63 The main problem with the bill is that no Congress can tie the hands of a future Congress. So in essence, if a future Congress passes a law that includes a provision saying "This law is exempt from Blah Blah Blah Act," that's pretty much it.

64

Posted by: monkeytoe at November 14, 2013 02:12 PM (sOx93)

 

This X 106,000

 

Regulation  =  Law   

 

Law must be passed by Congress

65

Should be a Con amendment, else they'll just re-write it at their convenience.

Retro to Jan 20, 2009 would be better.  7 days isn't long enough, I would go for at least 15; 30 days would be better.  As long as I could get.

Not sure about requiring CBO or some other un-named offficial agency, all such can be manipulated,.  Maybe better to have it available for 30 days and everyone can look at it, study it and analyze it.  Let Cato and Heritage and Brookings and CAP and all the rest all have their shots.

The 90-day sunset is naive; money spent is gone, contracts signed are contracts, regulatory decisions are very hard to un-do and have already influenced behavior.  I would rather say a bill can be passed on an emergency basis with 2/3 or even 3/4 majorities of both Houses.

If a bill gets changed, the 7/15/30 day clock restarts.  99% of the so-called emergencies in Congress are no such thing, they can work with 30 days just fine if they act like adults, if it's truly a national emergency they can get 2/3  or 3/4 votes.

66 The CBO is full of shit anyway

67 Posted by: TenthJustice at November 14, 2013 02:14 PM (qB8lN) Yeah, that sunset provision would probably need to be a constitutional amendment in order to bind further congresses.

68 Nope. Failure on arrival. The fatal flaw is that Congress still is spending other people's money. The flaw with all such rational and reasonable plans is that we no longer have a limited national government, at least with regard to spending. Without limits on what the national government can spend money on, there's no stopping the nonsense that have been coming out of D.C. since FDR.

69 Truth in Taxing Disclosure with the rolling average of CBO underestimating added in. and unfunded mandates with the rolling average of CBO underestimating added in.

70 For instance, the ACA was "graded" on how much it would cost in the next 10 years, even though it did not actually go into effect until year 5. Thus, it was already an accounting slight-of-hand.

Posted by: monkeytoe

Which was a lie. They couldn't have graded a bill that wasn't written, could they?

The bill wasn't even in print when the Dems voted on it. No grading was possible. Period.

I don't think there can ever be a bill that solves the fundamental problem of people being people and politicians being assholes, but any attempt at making Congress do their fucking job is ok by me.

71 Posted by: Commissioner Gordon at November 14, 2013 02:10 PM (g4GX That 3.8% tax is on Unearned income over $250K.... NOT just capital Gains. Thus.... if an LLC has rental Property? That is unearned income folks.. Expect Rents to rise... which affects the POOR more than the Rich...

72

Ace,

This would need to be a constitutional amendment or it would not work. We know how easily exceptions are found and made. If Congress passes a bill under emergency conditions and expressly exempts the bill from the 90 day sunset, then the courts would not hold otherwise.

And even in accounting, determining what is truly sufficient, what is truly a hidden cost, etc. WILL be contested and ignored.

I don't think there is any great magic bullet in form of law or constitutional amendment. I've thought maybe an amendment making EVERY law expire 5 years after its passage would impede the growth of government, but even then, there could be mass votes to clear the way (with unknown amendments). We need a thriving democracy (which does NOT mean full participation of the unwashed masses) that can/will throw politicians out.

73

#4 is good, but I think it would be deemed  "racist," because it only applies to Obammy's term in office.  

 

Honestly if you want to go back and look at bills passed in previous budgets,    I'd make it retroactive till at least the    middle   of the last century.  

 

It's probably more reasonable to require that any    law   that includes any spending -- whichi s pretty much all of them -- be forced to go through a mandatory reauthorization.   Most of them do    anyway (if not all), but for the most part these things are handwaved through.   When they're not -- like the farm bill -- it causes a stir. 

 

But there's no reason why spending should be handwaved; it's antithetical to the very purpose    of the House of Reps.  

74 I think there's something somewhere that one Congress can't bind another Congress in regards to matter of process.

75 I think we just repeal the fuckers and move on from there.  To prison cells for the wrong-doers.

76 On point 4, you might also consider an alternative to the effect of "retroactive to any laws already passed but not fully in effect / implemented yet", which would include Obamacare.  If it's not fully rolled out and in effect it should be subject to review, and people might find that more attractive than an arbitrary calendar date.

77 I would amend point #4 and make it retroactive to 1789.

78 Over/Under on Chris Matthews passing out drunk before his show ?

79 Alternate name for the bill: We Shouldn't Have To Pass It To Find Out What's In It Bill. The "No Stool Sample" bill.

80 I like the idea. I seem to remember someone already proposed a bill similar to this, a Rep in the House. Maybe I'm wrong. I'd add a #5 provision. Every person who votes on a bill, in order to register a vote, they must also certify that they have read the bill in its entirety. This is just their word of course, but if they don't go on record as officially saying they read it, then they can't vote on it.

81 No New Taxation  Without Proper Lubrication !!

82 Really, what incentive now exists for Congress/POTUS to give up their power?

That incentive (or disincentive) must be created.

And it must be PHYSICAL in nature....

83 Can't leave it at the CBO since that is open to political influence. In addition to the CBO score, all new laws should automatically sunset after a period (say 3 years). They can be made permanent only after the true cost is compared to the CBO score AND victims of the law have a chance to testify before congress. Then force them to vote to make permanent laws that explode the budget and shift focus from the left's imaginary benefactors to real world victims of government.

84 I'd also like to see a requirement that the government inform the public of the yearly unfunded cost of the laws it passes. Obama and the Dims sold Obamacare as a law that "would not add one thin dime to the deficit" and the CBO backed up that lie. Since its passage, some of the crap that was supposed to help pay for Obamacare's costs -- like that long-term disability insurance scheme -- have been dumped as unworkable. Congress and the CBO should have to tell the public how much Obamacare is costing us on a yearly basis -- i.e., how much it is adding to the deficit. Obama shouldn't be allowed to blatantly lie about that in order to get the bill passed, and then never have to address the issue again. This monstrosity of a law is going to add billions to the deficit every year of its existence, and the public has a right to know that.

85 Posted by: GP at November 14, 2013 02:16 PM (B5Bk0) The Founders saw the Vote as a Privilege, not a Right.... The ONLY way to save the Republic IMO, is to go back that that ideal.... and ONLY allow those who have a Net Positive income tax, to vote... When those who leach from the government, can select leaders.... that Government is doomed to fail.

86 longa barba vestesque Johannes

87 Waste of time. The CBO scores everything already... according to government accounting methods (math?!?! that's hard... I know that there's a unicorn in here somewhere!) Make the Federal government subject to GAAP, Dodd Frank, SOX, and HIPPA... including the penalties that bypass corporate veil and go straight after individuals.

88 "Congress would pass this. With an exemption for Congress."

Shit, Congress would pass it and then totally ignore it. There is ample precedent.

How many times in recent years have Congress adhered to the letter of the law of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which among other things imposes strict dates certain on the Hill to produce budgets?

In contemporary Imperial America, we have an isolated, arrogant, and unaccountable political class who have become accustomed to simply doing what they want when they want to do it, and riding roughshod over all restraints. One more rule to add to the huge pile of already-ignored rules doesn't seem likely to curb that tendency.

89 If we have to go through the amendment process for something that specific, I'd rather spend the political capital on term limits.

90 If the CBO is fatally compromised, then it's time to find a new system. We trusted them and they fucked us. Posted by: EC at November 14, 2013 02:13 PM (GQ8sn) It's not necessarily that it is compromised. It is that to use the CBO as an "independent" and "unbiased" agency to score bills, there have to be ground rules agreed to - such as what the rate of growth is going to be, how things are counted, etc. And we are never going to get the DNC to agree to ground rules that are reasonable in terms of realistic accounting of what various bills will end up costing. And, the sad reality is, the GOP doesn't really want the CBO to use real numbers either. GOP politicians want to be able to tout some idiotic CBO estimate of a bill's cost, or a tax's cost. And, when things turn sour, they want to be able to blame it on the CBO and say "we were told this wasn't going to cost that much". When both sides don't want real cost accounting estimates, you aren't going to get them.

91 "It will be on CSPAN" - Barky Obumbles

92

Funny, how this sort of paternalistic "we know what's best, so we can lie to you for your own good" approach was explicitly rejected with respect informed consent in medical research. 

 

SAT Question:

ObamaCare is to governance as ____________ was to ethical medical research:

a) The Tuskeegee Trial

b) The Stanford Prison Guard Experiment

c) The Stanford Electric Shock Experiment

d) What the hell was going on at Stanford!?!

e) All of the above

93 I'm not sure why it wouldn't be constitutional. Except for the retroactive part That was my concern. Every congress starts with its own rules, so rules from the previous congress can not bind a new one. This would be a rules change, like the filibuster rule. I don't see it happening in both houses. Why would one house want to bind themselves?

94 I'd add a #5 provision. Every person who votes on a bill, in order to register a vote, they must also certify that they have read the bill in its entirety. This is just their word of course, but if they don't go on record as officially saying they read it, then they can't vote on it.

Posted by: T40 at November 14, 2013 02:18 PM (VjlMj)

 

 

 

But what if they can't read?  That's discrimination!  What about poor Hank Johnson?  And besides, sometimes you just have to pass a bill to find out what's in it...don't you know that?

95 Needs a #5 .5 The press, guaranteed freedom under the First Amendment, is obligated to report

96 When both sides don't want real cost accounting estimates, you aren't going to get them.



Then let it burn.

97 Fuck the CBO. Ask anyone in the field, and by that I mean anyone who got their hands dirty, not the ones who teach at Hassvaraad Yaaard, and they would have told you this was fucked from the get go.

98

Ace-- While I understand the train of thought, I respectfully request to disagree. To my way of thinking, it makes more sense to stipulate that Congress may pass no law from which they are exempt. Next reaffirm, and strengthen if necessary, the oath of office as it pertains to defending and applying the constitution. Were I to carry it further-- NO MORE CAREER POLITICIANS!! These are the scum that have perverted our representative democracy. Term limits for all, pension plans are rolled into federal civil service --no more special treatment. Do your term of service, and back to work doing something PRODUCTIVE. Service to your country is a privilege and honor. I could go on --but that is enough for starters---rod

99 You know what else is the law? Passing a budget. We see how well that's worked out.

100 ... accurately all relevant information to the Citizens of the US.

101 ObamaCare's dead. That's what I said. We're all hung up on progress But sometimes I must confess We can deal with waivers and dreams But reality, what does it mean? And you tell me you want to be a Donkey wow.

102 They knew exactly what they were about. They just didn't have the courage to say so at the time. Now an Obamacare architect who helped create Romneycare said "genetic lottery winners" have been paying an "artificially low" price.

103 This is just their word of course, but if they don't go on record as officially saying they read it, then they can't vote on it. Posted by: T40 at November 14, 2013 02:18 PM (VjlMj) There is NO ONE in congress that has evah read the entire appropriations bill. That would take several years of non stop reading.

104 Can't leave it at the CBO since that is open to political influence. ______________________ Yes, the CBO can score any law any way it's directed, based on the assumptions it is told to use. There should be a requirement that the CBO must use generally accepted accounting procedures when doing the scoring, and there should also be a requirement that the CBO's work be reviewed and approved by a randomly selected independent accounting firm.

105

As they say,  you can  use stats to prove anything.   In the CBOs case,  they can  project numbers to support anything. 

106 "93 I'm not sure why it wouldn't be constitutional. Except for the retroactive part Posted by: Nip Sip at November 14, 2013 02:20 PM (0FSuD)" That's actually the least troubling part. Congress can rewrite any past law anyway they please. And a law like this would be essentially be doing that to all legislation dating back to 2010. The stickier part, as pointed out above, is how nonbinding on a future Congress this law is. And a future Congress can just simply exempt any single piece of legislation from this law.

107

Can we just have a bill repealing everything passed since 2009?

 

I mean, hell, even repeal the years themselves.  My liver would be healthier.

108 OK wanna trust the CBO, here's my plan. When they ar off by 50%, the people who work there forfeit 50% of their pay. Howya like dem apples

109 This whole debacle should have resulted in the Democrats being a permanent minority party!

The fact that they are probably going to survive this as it seems the GOP is hot to give them lifelines speaks volumes.

It really is time for purges in the GOP.

110 86 longa barba vestesque Johannes chair est obviam parietis.

111 In case no one said it yet:
No Representation without Taxation.

112 What we need is steel bar and concrete intervention for Barky, Nanzi, Horney and many, many others.

113 There should be a requirement that the CBO must use generally accepted accounting procedures when doing the scoring, and there should also be a requirement that the CBO's work be reviewed and approved by a randomly selected independent accounting firm.

Posted by: Trivial Pursuer at November 14, 2013 02:22 PM (/sohm)

 

 

 

Meaning an independent accounting firm that would somehow not be subject to the likes of  an Eric  Holder leaning on them?

114 NEW YORK - Congress today voted overwhelmingly to excercise their authority under the Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Speaker Boehner joined Senator Reid at a joint news conference and hailed the era of cooperation. "By inserting new digits between the numbers three and four, seven and eight, and another little one one right after nine, we've been able to balance the budget, eliminate unemployment, and generate an $18 Zolscrew surplus," the Speaker was quoted as saying. In other news, the new design for the $10 horsheet bill was revealed.

115 "Brilliant idea. Much like California propositions. However, in California, any proposition the citizens pass, the courts discard."

That's not quite how it works.

The courts let stand any left-wing proposition.

When the occasional rare right-wing proposition gets through, first the courts strike it down, and then left-wing California officialdom discreetly decline to challenge the ruling via appeal.

116 Congress shall make no law which cannot be printed in its entirety in 14pt type on less than 100 8.5x11 pages, including all laws which are amended by said law. Congress shall not vote on any law which has not been posted online for a minimum of 1 calendar week, with no provision for emergencies. (there is no emergency that needs a law passed that fast) All laws passed by Congress must sunset in no more than 1 year. Any law which does no have the word "tax" in the title may not be considered a tax by the Supreme Court

117 The CBO is worthless it's so compromised.

In fact, any "overwatch" or "accounting" organization utilizing federal union employees is compromised before it's even put into place.

How about a Truth in Political Advertizing law? All politicians actually held accountable for the bullshit lies they constantly spin with every citizen having automatic standing before the court?

The degenerate, inbred, snot gobbling mouth breeding thumb suckers of the left want "true democracy", let them inherit the mob. And a mob with the ability to strike back at will on any issue at any time a politician of any sort opens his or her shit spewing mouth.

Wouldn't solve anything. Our leet life time politicals would just make themselves safe by some fiat type legislative handwavium, but it'd be interesting theater for a bit.

118 How did they rig that deal about voting/not voting on their automatic pay increases? Can you name any lawmaker that came home from DC poor?

119 I know you can't put this in your law, but how about no more "comprehensive" solutions?
How could anyone expect that a bill that is thousands of pages long, and includes so much that is up to HHS/IRS discretion, would actually work. Our country was founded with such a s brief Constitution and clearly stated Bill of Rights, yet these bills need thousands of pages? No.

120 How about adding this.  No more bills passed with supposedly fill in the blank sections.  If that wasn't the case then so be it, but make it such that a bill has a month in final form for everyone to have a copy and read before it can be put up for a vote.

121 There should be a requirement that the CBO must use generally accepted accounting procedures when doing the scoring, and there should also be a requirement that the CBO's work be reviewed and approved by a randomly selected independent accounting firm. Even that would not help. Most revenue streams rely of assumptions of collections based on the economic growth or lack of at sometime in the future. As an ole economist, just give me my assumptions and I'll give you any revenue stream you want. The assumptions are always political. You are dealing with too many variables.

122 OK wanna trust the CBO, here's my plan. When they ar off by 50%, the people who work there forfeit 50% of their pay. Howya like dem apples

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 02:24 PM (t3UFN)

 

The problem with that is the CBO is given the numbers and rationale to use, and then has to use them.   So while I don't hold the blameless,   I don't think they are the most to blame.

 

If anyone loses their pay, it should be the legislators who proposed    the legislation.

123 Every institution that is not explicitly right-wing, becomes left-wing over time. You asked for a miracle? I give you the C. B. O.

124 It's weird.  For five years I couldn't mention Obamacare without a chorus of idiots praising our new King, but now I can't find anyone who wants to talk about it.

How about a "You Broke It, You Own It" law. 

125 ...kinda like a buyer's remorse law.

126 The legal term of art is informed consent. Without it, practitioners (e.g., lawyers, physicians) can be sued for malpractice.

127 Now an Obamacare architect who helped create Romneycare said "genetic lottery winners" have been paying an "artificially low" price. Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at November 14, 2013 02:22 PM (Y92Nd) ________________________ Yes, and "genetic lottery winners" also win all the Nobel prizes, and they get all the high-paying modelling jobs, and they get all the big sports contracts, and they start all the big-money corporations, and they invent all the coolest gadgets, and they get all the best recording contracts, etc. Don't those "genetic lottery winners" owe the rest of us? When can I expect my checks from Bill Gates and George Clooney and Beyonce and Michael Jordan and all the rest of them? I'm genetically disadvantaged compared to them -- and damnit, it's just not fair! Why isn't the government passing laws that re-distribute their wealth to me?

128 112 What we need is steel bar and concrete intervention for Barky, Nanzi, Horney and many, many others. Posted by: WalrusRex at November 14, 2013 02:26 PM (PjgvN) What the nobles did to Edward II...I could support that as well.

129 >>Can you name any lawmaker that came home from DC poor?

Can you name many lawmakers that actually come home from DC?
Even if they leave office they end up getting a job in another part of the system - lobbying, think tanks, heading up organizations like Freddie Mac, etc.

130 The problem with that is the CBO is given the numbers and rationale to use, and then has to use them. So while I don't hold the blameless, I don't think they are the most to blame. If anyone loses their pay, it should be the legislators who proposed the legislation. Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Assault Hobbit at November 14, 2013 02:28 PM (4df7R) Oh well I thought not paying the legislators was a given. My bad

131 When the occasional rare right-wing proposition gets through, first the courts strike it down, and then left-wing California officialdom discreetly decline to challenge the ruling via appeal. --- Witness Prop 187, Prop 8, etc.

132 Posted by: Wyfaggro at November 14, 2013 02:26 PM (QG0gy) I like the idea....let's hold 'em to an index card.

133 We could have a website that displays all of the disclosed information.  It will be as easy as buying a song from iTunes!

134 The Left is so good at taking over institutions, I'd be fine having overwatch done by two competing groups -- one chosen by the Dems, one chosen by the Repubs. Fuck the CBO and their fake independence. Let Brookings and Heritage duke it out. Or ThinkProgress and AEI. Let's just have the bias be upfront and honest.

135 @ChadPergram 2m Senate D's reluctant to put Landrieu's #Obamacare fix it bill or other legislation on the flr. Concerns about GOP "mischief."

136 How about a law that says a hack Supreme Court Justice can't rule something Constitutional because it's a "tax" when the authors of the bill before them have spent months jumping up and down and shrieking "This is not a tax!"

137 Chuck Schumer has just introduced the Quieter Proles Production Act.

138 Posted by: Romeo13 at November 14, 2013 02:16 PM

>>"That 3.8% tax is on Unearned income over $250K.... NOT just capital Gains.

Thus.... if an LLC has rental Property? That is unearned income folks..

Expect Rents to rise... which affects the POOR more than the Rich..."


Oh man...

To paraphrase George Will's argument a couple of days ago, this "ACA" monstrosity is constructed like a Calder sculpture; one part of it can't be moved or "fixed" without adversely affecting some other part of the economy.

139 This whole debacle should have resulted in the Democrats being a permanent minority party!

The fact that they are probably going to survive this as it seems the GOP is hot to give them lifelines speaks volumes.

It really is time for purges in the GOP.

Posted by: Kreplach at November 14, 2013 02:24 PM (qH/2Y)

 

Bill Clinton diddled an intern with a cigar in his office and  directly lied  and scolded the public when he was asked about it.   Sandy Berger stuffed top secret papers in his socks and underwear.   Clinton's  team was directly responsible by their actions for allowing terrorists to get away with  carrying out 9/11.   The Democrats in Congress ,specifically Franks and Dodd  were directly responsible for the real estate crash and recession.    If the Democrats were not made a permanent minority then,  they never will be. 

140 124 It's weird. For five years I couldn't mention Obamacare without a chorus of idiots praising our new King, but now I can't find anyone who wants to talk about it. Also weird...my Lib acquaintances are suddenly "liking" my Facebook O'DeathCare postings. They aren't commenting, but they ARE hitting "like." Baby steps, baby steps...

141 I liked my idea of, for every new law or regulation, they must get rid of 10 previously written laws or regulations. But that'll probably not happen either.

142 Oh well I thought not paying the legislators was a given. My bad

Posted by: Nevergiveup at November 14, 2013 02:29 PM (t3UFN)

 

lol!   Well then, I'm onboard!

143

I'd go one step further........every bill should state the annual cost per household and per citizen. And, if it is a social welfare program, it should state the annual benefit amount per per program recipient [aka taxeater].

 

 

144

TANSTAAFL.

 

Every new law requires new taxes. iow, every law requires 'hidden taxes' in order to pay for the implementation and enforcement of the new law(s). (Permits, fees, licenses, etc.)

 

The more laws that are on the books, the more taxes you must pay.

 

When you support a new law, you are implicitly and explicitly supporting the collection of more and larger taxes on your own income and properties.

 

 

 

 

145 Here's one: any law that requires more than five pages of text shall be read in full on the floor of the chamber by its author(s)

146 Not far enough. 

All agency generated REGULATION should be considered to be defacto law and subject to 1-year sunsetting unless reauthorized by congress and subsequently signed by the president into actual law.

This shit of agencies writing the bulk of quasi-law needs to stop.  congress and the president need to be put on the hook for this.

Agencies need to get back to being implementers of law, not creators of it.

147 Ted Kennedy, hero Democrat, collaborated with the Soviet Union and murdered a young woman, yet was given a hero patriot's funeral.

148

The Constitution prohibits ex-post-facto laws, but otherwise I'm down.

 

Liberals really have wreaked havoc on what constitutes consent of the governed.  It would be a nice civics lesson to debate this for a while.

149

If congress isn't following EXISTING laws, then more laws aren't going to service to police them.   That's OUR job.  We need to make these tax-paid criminals AFRAID to break OUR laws.  There should be hell to pay.

150 I was thinking about the ramifications of an Obama administration campaign against Big Insurance and Big Pharma  and the thought occurred to me:

Citizens United vs.The FEC

Whoaaaa .... documents, tons of compliance documents, battalions of lawyers. Courtroom/ Green Room Armageddon.   Campaign contributions, filthy lucre by the wheelbarrow.

151 Seems only Republican laws have sunsets -- like the Bush tax cuts.

152 I like my Constitutional amendment better ...

A citizen should be able to keep at least half of his/her earnings, no matter.

153 There were 2000 pages in the Obamacare law, but for every unread word in the law there are 30 unread words of regulations that Congress never approved. This is where the bulk of the tyranny lies.

154 "148 The Constitution prohibits ex-post-facto laws, but otherwise I'm down. Posted by: rockmom who wants to win in 2016 at November 14, 2013 02:33 PM (Q4elb)" That wouldn't apply here. Congress can rewrite any past law it wants at any time.

155 ... or the long form ...


In order to keep the government from becoming burdensome, the right of a citizen to keep at least half of his/her earnings shall not be infringed, no matter.

156 >>The CBO scores everything already... according to government accounting methods (math?!?! that's hard... I know that there's a unicorn in here somewhere!) It's worse. CBO scores things based on the underlying assumptions of the proposed law. If the law says there will be a 100% participation rate in some new law, CBO has to score it that way even if common sense says that it will never happen. The way the CBO is structured prevents it from giving honest analysis even if it wanted to.

157 Hey, here's a radical idea: how about we make the federal government a government of limited powers! It would only have authority over certain specifically enumerated things, and all other powers would be reserved to the state governments. Then, if the state governments got out of control and started enacting all sorts of overly-complex, "comprehensive" laws, the voters of the states could throw the bums out. It's genius! Why didn't anybody ever think of it before? Oh, wait . . . .

158 To be perfectly honest, this it perhaps the most naive bill I have ever seen. 1. Anyone who has ever run a business knows that this is utter nonsense. 2. The solution to Congress Critter's inability and unwillingness to read and understand bills is to direct the CBO (who already scored Obamacare and every-fucking-thing else incorrectly) to score stuff? Really? 3. Line 3- What defines an "emergency"? And sunset provisions? Kinda like our "budget" that just gets routinely passed as a CR? 4. Item 4- retroactively? A) Name a bill that wasn't scored by CBO( see my item 2). B) Repeal everything... yup, that will do wonders for the economy. Think delaying 1 provision of Obamacare is a disaster? Try calling a mulligan on the past 5 years. Whatever idiot wrote this should be drowned in a well.

159 Oooh, add this.  For every page (12 pt font, single spaced, per side), equals the number of days that a law must be in final form and the public has access to before the law can be voted on.   Stop this 2000 page shit.

160 You know if they end withholding, they cripple O-Care's "penalty" tax. Because its collected from refunds. Which only happen when they withhold.

161 The CBO will just lie.

162 "148 The Constitution prohibits ex-post-facto laws, but otherwise I'm down. __________________ LOL. Constitution? We don't need no stinkin' constitution. It's so old skool. Somethin' dreamed up by a bunch of raaaacist old white guys who didn't even own an iPad.

163 Also weird...my Lib acquaintances are suddenly "liking" my Facebook O'DeathCare postings. They aren't commenting, but they ARE hitting "like." Baby steps, baby steps.. Sweep the leg! Curb stomp them! Go for the jugular!

164 *sad look* *whispers* So racist. So, so racist.

165

"The No Taxation Without Honest Representation Act"  is fine but needs a catchy name.  How about "SB 396 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PROCEDURE"...? 

 

Rolls off the tongue better.

166 And 10 year re-authorizations for EVERY law on the books, no exceptions.  Criminal, civil, the whole shebang.  No re-authorization bill is allowed to cover more than 100 printed pages of law at a rip.

If the fuckers are kept busy reauthorizing old stuff, that's less time for them to be fucking us over.

167 Ex post facto laws are black-letter unconstitutional, fwiw ...

168

BTW, the biggest deceptions in the funding of Obamacare were:

 

1. 10 years of taxes vs. 6 years of subsidies. 

 

2. Lots of revenues from the CLASS Act, which was a little-known government-run long-term care insurance plan that was supposed to take in millions in premiums but not pay any benefits for 20+ years, outside the CBO scoring window.  It was such an actuarial train wreck that HHS simply decided not to implement it.  But those revenues were counted toward the "deficit reduction" of the entire ACA which ultimately allowed Congress to use reconciliation rules to pass it. 

 

3. 80 billion dollars from the federal takeover of student loans - a measure that was a) not germane to health care at all, and b) never heard in committee in either the House or Senate nor brought for a separate vote, just rammed in when they needed some more revenue to qualify the bill for reconciliation. 

169

Ace as you may know CBO only "scores" legislation within the parameters given by the House or Senate.  In other words, bullshit.  Or, a fairly close approximation to the old econ joke about an engineer, a mechanic, and an economist stuck on an island with only canned food to eat.

 

Engineer suggests a sophisticated scheme using the tropical sun and sharpened coral pieces to cut open the cans, while the mechanic comes up with a simple scheme using heavy rocks and a pocket-knife.  Economist:  "assume a can opener".

 

Unless the parameters of any budgetary/fiscal scoring are serious and relevant, the scoring will be useless.

 

Beyond that - there is no "rules based" solution to a dumbed-down, lazy, and illiterate electorate herded around by a ridiculous "press" and pop culture and education industry (speaking esp. as always of "educated" people here, not everyone's bogeyman the "LIVs" or "FSA").  A serious country would have made Obama impossible/unthinkable from the outset, ditto the absurd and unconstitutional O-care law, ditto even the degraded judicial system crowned with a pretty unserious SCOTUS.  Sorry!

 

170 I know, just have the President have the HHS secretary issue a "waiver" to allow ex post fact laws. Problem solved!

171 Yep, how's that Student Loan market working? I love the smell of nationalization in the morning!

172 These are all wish lists that won't happen, so let me add my own:

All regulatory changes, rules, regulations and initiatives must be passed by Congress and signed by the President before taking effect.  No law shall be passed that grants any department or agency rulemaking authority except for those governing internal conduct.

One of the great Constitutional injustices being done is the practice of Congress granting agencies like the EPA, HHS, etc the ability to independently pass and enforce laws under the guise of them being not laws, but rules and regulations.

If it mandates or prohibits an action or behavior with penalties associated with non-compliance, it's a law, no matter what Orwellian term you give it.

173 That wouldn't apply here. Congress can rewrite any past law it wants at any time. Posted by: NotCoach at November 14, 2013 02:35 PM (rsudF) The current congress can not bind a future congress. Rules of each house expire when that Congress adjourns. This could not be a law, it would have to be a rule of each house. As I stated earlier, not going to happen.

174
To paraphrase George Will's argument a couple of days ago, this "ACA" monstrosity is constructed like a Calder sculpture; one part of it can't be moved or "fixed" without adversely affecting some other part of the economy.

Posted by: Commissioner Gordon at November 14, 2013 02:31 PM (g4GX

 

Oh God.   That's it.   That's what this reminds me of.

 

From Plinkett's review of "Phantom Menace:"

 

After the rough cut screening of the movie for the first time, everyone in attendance looks just as baffled at    the clusterfuck as    we were.   George   admits to throwing too much out there.

 

...

 

Lucas then realizes that he can't remove major segments of the    movie in editing because    they're intertwined.

 

(Lucas) "I mean, I've thought about this quite a bit, and the tricky part is    you almost can't take any of those pieces out of there.  Cause each one kind of takes you to the next place and you can't jump, you know..."

 

Hey, it's too late now!  

 

Later on, after everybody's started drinking, Lucas attempts to    explain his newly minted bowel movement as "bold"    and    "extreme"    and   "stylistic".

 

(Lucas) "It's stylistically designed to be that way, and you can't undo that.   But we can diminish the effects of it."

 

No one looks like they know what's going on,   and they all look like they're about to start pointing fingers.  

 

 

That's what Obammycare is.    It's like the "Phantom Menace" of legislation,   and Obammy and his "braintrust" are fucking George Lucas.  

175 And reauthorization votes MUST pass house/senate with 75%.  If you can't get strong bipartisan approval for a reauthorization, then the damn thing sunsets.

176 Here's one: any law that requires more than five pages of text shall be read in full on the floor of the chamber by its author(s) Posted by: Cicero (@cicero) at November 14, 2013 02:32 PM (8ZskC) How about "All bills..." Also, add 2 requirements: 1. At minimum, a quorum must present for the entire reading (read all you want, these fuckers barely show up for anything) 2. All cell phones, electronic devices, books, and/ or printed materials with the exception of the bill in question or directly related materials are banned from the floor ('cause we all know how much these fucks like to play Angry Birds and Poker when they're supposed to be listening to shit). Of course, this would necessitate electing people that know how to read.

177 And 10 year re-authorizations for EVERY law on the books, no exceptions. Criminal, civil, the whole shebang. No re-authorization bill is allowed to cover more than 100 printed pages of law at a rip. If the fuckers are kept busy reauthorizing old stuff, that's less time for them to be fucking us over. Riding your horse in a whorehouse on Sundays MIGHT become legal again!

178 I would love it, but According to the CBO, wasn't ObamaCare "neutral" to our deficits?  These agencies can easily manipulated, and then there's the problem you can't bind a future Congress.  As soon as they get the reigns, the law is "tweaked" and never heard from again.

If you want real tax reform, just make it so employers aren't allowed to deduct taxes automatically from people's paycheck.  You'd have an army surrounding DC on the first quarterly payment.

179 #172 Believe it or not, one of the most well functioning laws on the books is the Federal Trade Commission Act.  It has no regulations at all.   It prohibits false advertising and deceptive marketing.  The Federal Trade Commission has a small and professional staff that enforces it and they do a good job of it.  The FTC has no authority to write any regulations. 

180 "167 Ex post facto laws are black-letter unconstitutional, fwiw ... Posted by: I have MS-NBC for that at November 14, 2013 02:41 PM (sq9q3) " Ex post facto has nothing to do with something like this. Ace's idea is not a law that would retroactively punish anyone for past crimes that weren't crimes in the past. It would essentially rewrite past legislation, which any congress can do, and has done. Look, if you apply ex post facto in this way you essentially say no law can ever be repealed, but we all know that isn't true. If congress wanted to attach a sunset clause to an existing law they can, no questions asked.

181 92 Funny, how this sort of paternalistic "we know what's best, so we can lie to you for your own good" approach was explicitly rejected with respect informed consent in medical research. SAT Question: ObamaCare is to governance as ____________ was to ethical medical research: a) The Tuskeegee Trial b) The Stanford Prison Guard Experiment c) The Stanford Electric Shock Experiment d) What the hell was going on at Stanford!?! e) All of the above Posted by: ZBBMcFate Historical sidenote, to clear up a massive misinformation agenda that has seeped into the mainstream: The Tuskegee syphilis study was not nearly as unethical, nor as racist, as most everyone assumes. First common misconception: The government infected people with syphilis simply in order to watch how it killed them. FALSE: The study only involved people who already had syphilis. Second common misconception: The government purposely selected black people to be in the study. FALSE: The study intended to track people who had long-term syphilis but who had never been to a doctor for treatment. Problem is, there were few such people left in the country who fit that description, and the only ones who could be identified were rural sharecroppers. It was intended as a race-based study: it merely turned out that way essentially by accident because only the poorest and most rural people in that era avoided medical treatment. Third common misconception: That the study was unethical at its core. FALSE: It actually had a legitimate medical purpose: It was suspected (as the time the study started in 1932) that the standard "treatments" given to syphilis patients were HURTING them more than helping them. The existing drugs as that time only mildly alleviated syphilis symptoms, while simultaneously causing many extreme "side effects" because the drugs were so toxic. The medical community thought that perhaps they were doing more harm than good. So, attempting to be ethical, they initiated a controlled experiment in which some people were not given the toxic drugs, and their progress tracked to see if they in fact ended up better off than those who were given the drugs. The presumption was that the untreated group would indeed fare better, which is many respects turned out to be the case. So, seen from this angle, the real scandal was that everybody with syphilis should have been in the experiment, rather than just a lucky few. Fourth common misconception: The first 15 years of the experiment, from 1932 to 1947, might conceivably be defended as ethical without the frameworks of how medical experiments were conducted in that era, but after 1947 it became unquestionably unethical, because it was in that year that penicillin was conclusively recognized as the "cure" for syphilis. And yet even after that date, the study participants were not given penicillin. PARTLY TRUE: The subjects were indeed not treated with penicillin. But that was not as cruel as it might seem at first: By this time, all the subjects had long-term tertiary syphilis, the effects of which cannot be reversed. Treating them with penicillin, after most of them had had syphilis for 30 or 40 years or more, wouldn't have done much good. But yes, the study should have been called off in 1947, simply because it no longer serve much of a purpose. Fifth common misconception: The the Tuskeegee syphilis study was unique in that the participants did not give "informed consent," and that this unethical approach was due to racism. FALSE: As horrifying as it seems to our modern sensibilities, MOST medical studies in those days did not involve "informed consent" of the participants. They same unethical approach was used on subject groups of all type and all races, for nearly a century. It had little or nothing to do with race in this instance. Overall: Was it at first a legitimate study? Yes. Was it racist? No. Were the medical ethics of the era terrible by our modern standards? Yes Was this study particularly unethical by the standards of the era? No. Should it have been called off halfway through? Yes. Does the nation as a whole or do white people as a group deserve blame for the study? A resounding NO -- aside from the doctors involved and a few bureaucrats, almost no one in the nation even knew it was happening.

182 We need more of this. An influential conservative website proposing legislation that promotes smaller government, less regulation and lower taxes. As well intentioned and logical as this suggestion is, it still tries to oppose basic human nature by trying to force people to do something they normally wouldn't do on their own initiative. Elected officials will still want to mislead taxpayers on the cost of programs designed to provide favor among the constituents they believe will vote for them. New a sneakier ways will be devised to get around the law and distort figures. I suggest an alternative way is to provide a personal incentive for elected officials to keep spending within limits. How they prioritize after that is up to them (and the voters at election time).

183 Posted by: Flatbush Joe at November 14, 2013 02:28 PM (ZPrif)

Yippy Ki Yay!

184

Posted by: Hollowpoint at November 14, 2013 02:43 PM (SY2Kh)

 

Someone earlier had stated the same.   It bears repeating .   And sharing those thoughts with your Representative and Senator.   

185 important typo fix in comment 181 above: It was intended as a race-based study = It was NOT intended as a race-based study

186 "The current congress can not bind a future congress. Rules of each house expire when that Congress adjourns. This could not be a law, it would have to be a rule of each house. As I stated earlier, not going to happen. Posted by: Nip Sip at November 14, 2013 02:44 PM (0FSuD)" That's not ex post facto either, but I agree. A future congress would most likely just simply exempt laws from this law when written.

187 >>> And 10 year re-authorizations for EVERY law on the books, no exceptions. Sunsets and reauthorizations don't work. Texas has a provision like this. So, at the beginning of each session, they vote to reauthorized everything that is expiring and move on. Grand total of 30 seconds. You can't legislate thinking and more than you can legislate morality. Murder is illegal. Why do people still get killed?

188 sock

189 OboobaCare?

O-Bubo-Care?

(Just trying out a few things here . . .)

190 another typo fix: ethical without the frameworks of how medical experiments were conducted in that era = ethical WITHIN the frameworks of how medical experiments were conducted in that era Gee, I hate typos that reverse the meaning of a sentence! Sheeesh.

191

jwest -

 

Americans fought and won a revolution because they were not being governed with the consent of the people.  When a corrupt government conspires to prevent the people from effectively granting consent,  drastic measures are warranted. 

 

This is why things like Obamacare are so offensive.  It was passed only through massive deception, which really should not be possible in a republic.   

192

And 10 year re-authorizations for EVERY law on the books, no exceptions. Criminal, civil, the whole shebang.

 

I’m waiting for a state/federal candidate to vow “I won’t propose a new law without proposing the repeal of an old one.”

 

That would work on both ends.

 

 

193 Repealing the Income Tax would be the greatest step toward freedom. Make the Federal government dependent on the states for funding. Strip it of its independent power. And - I don't remember where I read it - apparently the Founders were writing open letters to their successors as early as 1804 saying they were usurping their offices and acting contrary to the intent of the Constitution. So politicians have been screwing us over almost since the very beginning of our country.

194 Purp and Hollowpoint and others here have repeated some excellent ideas.  Some of them, in some useful form, might even be feasible.  Might.  I really don't think the country is serious enough any more - from top to bottom - to make them feasible.  The lawlessness and disastrous irresponsible un-American authoritarian behavior doesn't seem to even offend many people inside the Beltway - or outside. 

195 Look, if you apply ex post facto in this way you essentially say no law can ever be repealed, but we all know that isn't true. If congress wanted to attach a sunset clause to an existing law they can, no questions asked. You can repeal any law, individually. You can not collectively. Some laws must originate in the House, taxation, all must go through committee. What committee are you going to assign this bill? Think of the harm a collective repeal would cause? You would face lawsuits from those that relied on the laws. You would have to compensate those harmed. You would also face undue taking lawsuits.

196 The problem with not telling infected people they're infected in studies is they go out and unwittingly infect other people.

Researcher:  so have you had any sexual contact with anyone new recently.

Subject: nope.

----

Dr. Gregory House: "Everyone lies"

197

Posted by: Damiano the Economic Traitor at November 14, 2013 02:50 PM (j0wOO)

 

Sounds like a Texas problem. We have sunset laws in PA and they are not reauthorized by mass vote.

198 Ace, As much as I adore the idea... Given the number of laws and parts of the Constitution being ignored now...what makes you think they'll pay attention to this?[/?] It's ultimately just like gun control: The people causing the problem aren't following the rules as it stands--a few more won't change the situation for the better.

199 Crapcakes.

200 Lace Wigs most hurt.

201 How about this for an idea?

Before any federal legislator can put a bill up for consideration, he/she must face The People's Champion (a perk extended to the UFC heavy weight champ?) in a no holds barred death match on pay per view.

202 "This is why things like Obamacare are so offensive. It was passed only through massive deception, which really should not be possible in a republic." Posted by: rockmom who wants to win in 2016 at November 14, 2013 02:52 PM (Q4elb) I couldn't agree more. And yes, it would be great if we could pass a law that says that from now on, there will be no lying or deception with proposed legislation. We would all feel good if something like that passed. However, it wouldn't change anything. Because the base incentives remain the same, people will find a way around the law. If you want things to really change, change the incentive to do the wrong thing. Roll the ball down the hill, not up it.

203 For bill that includes both taxes and expenditures. For the purpose of determining overall score, all expenditures which exist at the end of the analysis period which are not explicitly given an unconditional sunset by the end of said period, are assumed to be present during the entire analysis period even if they are specifically delayed.

204 Let's just pass a law to make criminal behaviour illegal.  Hey, that just might work.  So when we outlaw criminal activity, only laws will be criminal.  Or something like that...

205 44 I think this is why Roberts ruled the way he did. I think by ruling it was a "tax," he was inviting lawsuits on the basis that the tax was not properly implemented, was unconstitutional. ======= So Roberts turned a law that was unconstitutional into a law that was unconstitutional? He should have struck it down either way. He was derelict.

206 "195 Look, if you apply ex post facto in this way you essentially say no law can ever be repealed, but we all know that isn't true. If congress wanted to attach a sunset clause to an existing law they can, no questions asked. You can repeal any law, individually. You can not collectively. Some laws must originate in the House, taxation, all must go through committee. What committee are you going to assign this bill? Think of the harm a collective repeal would cause? You would face lawsuits from those that relied on the laws. You would have to compensate those harmed. You would also face undue taking lawsuits. Posted by: Nip Sip at November 14, 2013 02:53 PM (0FSuD)" A sunset clause is not a tax, and whether or not a law goes through committee is a rule congress imposes upon itself. And we would only be responsible to anyone supposedly harmed by sunsetting these laws if a past law created a contractual obligation. But that obligation can still be met even if a law is repealed. And what undue takings? Since when is repealing a law an undue taking?

207 So Roberts turned a law that was unconstitutional into a law that was unconstitutional? He should have struck it down either way. He was derelict.

Posted by: whoever at November 14, 2013 02:58 PM (yUY1h)

 

 

 

Nope, he just valued his illegally adopted kids more than America.

208 Someone earlier had stated the same. It bears repeating . And sharing those thoughts with your Representative and Senator.

Realistically it would likely require a SCOTUS decision that probably won't come.  There's too much incentive for Congress to delegate rulemaking authority to the cabinet- it gives Congress plausible denyability (I didn't vote for that regulation, don't blame me).

That the court allowed the practice in the first place was an inexcusable perversion of Constitutional principles.

209 >>>" And 10 year re-authorizations for EVERY law on the books, no exceptions. " Yes, this would be good. But do you know what would be even better? Incentives that would have every congressman and senator working their staffs 24/7 trying to find laws and spending that could be repealed for a savings. Also, trying to find regulations that could be eliminated that would raise the GDP.

210

To repeat myself and echo a few others who have sort of repeated my basic point - "rules based" solutions rarely work.  The current (and it didn't start yesterday) unconstitutional mess has happened because humans staff the machine, and they have simply abandoned the rules.  And been ALLOWED TO DO SO by the electorate (over time).

 

CA's constitution (like that of most states) forbids issuing public debt 1) without the "vote of voters" and 2) to finance operational or ongoing expenses.  Ha!  I think that requirement was observed, actually, up until the 1990s.  Then?  Simply flouted, without consequence.  Or even much notice.  The electorate changed, the political class changed, over time.  An unserious country will get more and more default human behavior and misgovernance over time - the rules are not self-enforcing.

 

One reason I am so discouraged that the increasingly brazen lawlessness of the last few years has met with about zero effective opposition, or even rhetorical flogging, from the opposition party.  Rule of law is the rarest thing in the history of human governance, the most important for civilized societies, and as it turns out fairly easily eroded.

 

 

 

211 196 Purp I'm not defending the study in its entirety -- I'm merely trying to debunk some of the many misconceptions about the study. Was the Tuskeegee study unethical, in the way you mention (and other ways)? Yes. But was that unethical behavior unique to this study, or based on racism? No. The same (or worse) unethical actions were taken in thousands of studies from the 19th century up through the 1970s, most of which were conducted on white people. The Tuskeegee study can legitimately be cited as a example of bad medical ethics, and cited to condemn the medical community of the era. But instead it is being cited as an example of racism, for which the United States as a whole is to blame. This is the narrative which is false.

212

@205-- I think this a result of NSA actions on Roberts-- and I restate--

To my way of thinking, it makes more sense to stipulate that Congress may pass no law from which they are exempt. Next reaffirm, and strengthen if necessary, the oath of office as it pertains to defending and applying the constitution. Were I to carry it further-- NO MORE career POLITICIANS!! These are the scum that have perverted our representative democracy. Term limits for all, pension plans are rolled into federal civil service --no more special treatment. Service to your country is a privilege and honor. I could go on --but that is enough for starters---rod

 

213 I am sure I am late to the party here, and the thread is about dead, but..... The idea is good but attacks the symptoms of our problems, not the problem. The problem being the federal government does too much that is not within its constitutional purview. I would suggest a bill (amendment) called the "it's not your effin job, congress" bill that would return the meaning of the commerce clause to pre-FDR days.

214

zombie, thanks for your historical correction effort there.

 

A somewhat similar area is the internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII.  Recently saw an interesting documentary (MIS - America's Secret Weapon) about Japanese-Americans working in military intel and translation in WWII.  At a local library.  In attendance was a comm. college historian specializing in J-American history and a few others with some area knowledge. 

 

I caused blank stares and some guffaws when I pointed out that internment of enemy aliens was actually a pretty basic requirement of the Geneva Conventions as they existed in 1942, and that a significant portion of those interned were either Jap. citizens or dual-nationals.  I didn't even mention that there was, in fact, some evidence of espionage among the targeted communities (of course) - the executive order may still have been unconstitutional and regrettable and a bad call even based on all relevant considerations, but it was not based on hair-trigger racist thuggishness or baseless panic - it arguably had very real basis in both Geneva and actual intelligence information. 

 

But as with many cherished victim mythologies, these very relevant facts - that change the whole picture for any thoughtful or historically literate folks - are simply not welcome. 

215 "Term limits for all, pension plans are rolled into federal civil service --no more special treatment. Service to your country is a privilege and honor." I rather like having career people serving the country. I want career military, career civil engineers, career bureaucrats. As far as politicians go, if they keep getting elected, they're welcome to stay. We have an opportunity to change them every few years. All it take is a concerted effort to get rid of the bad ones.

216

@ 215--Some career positions are not only desirable--but essential, and having served in various capacities for over forty years --military included--I think I have some perspective//// Politicians are consistent at screwing things up. "Same ol same ol " in this area is what results in pork--deal cutting --"vote for this and we'll give your state or district this "-- If you have term limits--this goes down. We'll still have deals like that- but to a lesser extent.

217 ______________________________

Ace,

Yours is the first truly innovative and conservative legislation proposal I have heard in years.
It's an excellent idea as it would necessarily result in the slowing of the growth of our Leviathan Federal Government.

However, yes I think you went too far in part 4.
And while AAA's suggestion is an improvement, it still goes too far - moreover it is generally unnecessary. Obamacare is crashing and burning spectacularly before the nation's very eyes as it comes out of the gate. It is very unlikely to survive.

Quite frankly, the potential law you have thought of is too good to muddy with the tactic of retroactively repealing bad laws that already exist.
Rather, you would want to give 'moderate' (ha ha) Democrats good reason to vote for your proposed legislation. If instead it automatically scrapped Obamacare, you would lose votes and diminish your chances for getting passed.

Another MAJOR benefit that your hypothetically-proposed legislation would yield: it would have a chastening on the size (and even the kinds) of subsequent legislative-bills proposed. The sponsoring and co-cosponsoring Senators/Representatives would not want to attach their names to a POS legislative proposal that CBO was going to tear into endless shreds.
(And also note that this benefit would apply especially to budgets bills! - Congress would simply not want to get its dick slapped by the CBO in front of the American voting public.) 

So Ace, honestly, your idea is a genius one. - Bravo.
I hope you put real and PERSISTENT effort into getting a Senator or House Representative to adopt it. It might somehow eventually catch on.

 

218 Since current CBO numbers assume that there will be no change in the status quo #1 needs a caveat regarding the logical change in current consumer behavior resulting from a law.
ie.... Raising taxes on cigarettes to pay for universal pre-school.  Under current behavior, X dollars will be raised; however, raising the cost will logically cause a percent of current consumers to reduce or end their consumption.

219 ______________________________

Ace,

One clause you might consider adding:

Any law that is more than just a government funding law (i.e., just a budget law) MUST be projected out by the CBO (and other analytical agencies) by at least twenty years.

Remember that one of the slick-tricks that Obama and the Democrats pulled in fooling the LIV public was to have Obamacare collect taxes but not pay out benefits for the first four years. That way, when the CBO scored the projected budgetary impact of Obamacare for its first ten years, it showed the law producing a budgetary surplus.
There is simply no way that the CBO would not have shown Obamacare producing serious deficits if it had been compelled to score it for a projected years.
Then the only way Obama and the Dems could have maintained their deficit-deception would have been by proposing a law that would only begin to provide goody-benefits close to a decade out! That would have been a much harder (perhaps even impossible) sell to even the LIV voters. 

220 "4. The law is specifically made retroactive to January 1, 2010..." I like it, but I doubt it would fly. There's a bunch of established case-law on this at the federal level, and the Supremes would likely invalidate the law on that basis if it was challenged. The rest of it: spot-on. And don't assume that an Obama veto can't be overriden, particularly in this cl****f*ck situation. There's a LOT of scared Dems in D.C. about to go into Full Meltdown. Relax, have a cold one; sit back and Watch it Burn.

221 I'd make one small change.

I'd have the CBO write an examination (instead of leaking a report), minimum one question for every 500 words in the bill, about what is in the bill.  A score or 80% would be required to cast a vote on the bill.

222 No person whom's federal subsidies surpass 20% of their income shall be allowed to vote in Federal Elections. No Amnesty until the National Debt is settled...