Published: Tuesday, July 7, 2009
RUSHED LEGISLATION
Read the bill before voting
Washington state's $9 billion budget shortfall got plenty of attention earlier this year. Where would the cuts hit? How hard? Would the most vulnerable be spared? What about education? Would taxes, fees or other revenues be raised?
All those details, and more, were discussed in committee meetings and hearings in Olympia, in newspaper articles and editorials, and in TV sound bites.
Yet when it came time for state lawmakers to actually vote on a two-year, $31.4 billion budget, encapsulated in a 515-page bill, they and their staffs had only about 48 hours to read it -- if any of them actually did. A two-year, $31.4 billion budget that took Democratic leaders weeks to hammer out behind closed doors (only they know which special interests were also in the room seeking favorable treatment), a bill most lawmakers and the public didn't see until the 103rd day of a 105-day session, sailed through the legislative process in the relative blink of an eye. Reporters in Olympia had virtually no time to dig into the details and highlight them for citizens.
Things can get even worse at the federal level. In February, the House and Senate passed the 1,071-page, $790 billion stimulus bill less than a day after its final version had been posted online. Rush jobs like that aren't without consequences: It was famously discovered later that the bill allowed millions in bonuses for reviled AIG executives.
In Washington, D.C., Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) has sponsored a bill that would require bills be posted online for at least 72 hours before debate begins. In Olympia, some Senate Republicans tried unsuccessfully this year to require a similar waiting period. They should try again next year, and lawmakers should approve it.
What would be the harm of actually sifting through the details of critical legislation? Surely nobody's trying to slip in anything controversial, are they? Sponsors are prepared to defend their proposals, right?
Yeah, right. And that's the point. Too many back-room deals, cut at the last minute, wouldn't survive public scrutiny. That's exactly why reasonable waiting periods are needed before bills are debated on the floor. Journalists, citizens -- heck, lawmakers -- need time to absorb what's being proposed. Public hearings on legislation are nothing more than show when the final product is pushed through without time for thoughtful debate.
It's time to lift the shroud of secrecy around our lawmaking processes. It's not too much to expect that lawmakers actually take the time to know what they're approving.
All those details, and more, were discussed in committee meetings and hearings in Olympia, in newspaper articles and editorials, and in TV sound bites.
Yet when it came time for state lawmakers to actually vote on a two-year, $31.4 billion budget, encapsulated in a 515-page bill, they and their staffs had only about 48 hours to read it -- if any of them actually did. A two-year, $31.4 billion budget that took Democratic leaders weeks to hammer out behind closed doors (only they know which special interests were also in the room seeking favorable treatment), a bill most lawmakers and the public didn't see until the 103rd day of a 105-day session, sailed through the legislative process in the relative blink of an eye. Reporters in Olympia had virtually no time to dig into the details and highlight them for citizens.
Things can get even worse at the federal level. In February, the House and Senate passed the 1,071-page, $790 billion stimulus bill less than a day after its final version had been posted online. Rush jobs like that aren't without consequences: It was famously discovered later that the bill allowed millions in bonuses for reviled AIG executives.
In Washington, D.C., Rep. Brian Baird (D-Wash.) has sponsored a bill that would require bills be posted online for at least 72 hours before debate begins. In Olympia, some Senate Republicans tried unsuccessfully this year to require a similar waiting period. They should try again next year, and lawmakers should approve it.
What would be the harm of actually sifting through the details of critical legislation? Surely nobody's trying to slip in anything controversial, are they? Sponsors are prepared to defend their proposals, right?
Yeah, right. And that's the point. Too many back-room deals, cut at the last minute, wouldn't survive public scrutiny. That's exactly why reasonable waiting periods are needed before bills are debated on the floor. Journalists, citizens -- heck, lawmakers -- need time to absorb what's being proposed. Public hearings on legislation are nothing more than show when the final product is pushed through without time for thoughtful debate.
It's time to lift the shroud of secrecy around our lawmaking processes. It's not too much to expect that lawmakers actually take the time to know what they're approving.
Comments
(