Loading Loading
Just for optimization

Politics.comblogPerso

freecreditcheck.com |  creditreports.com |  whois.domaintools.com |  bookclub.com

Truth in Name proposal

Visit hepsy's Blog | 13 months ago

Truth in Name

do it rightI propose a Truth in Name law. "Stimulus Package" is just another pretty name in the garden Government grows. Are we surprised the pretty name stinks? You -do- know the truth about it?

It's a challenge to remember what some of those bills truly are, that grow in Congress' garden. They're very creative, and Congress doesn't need to read before passing. Pretty as they are, the names rarely have anything to with what they represent. The names they choose are plainly deceptive. Maybe they do that, to get us to easily follow without thought?
(I wonder, did they think about them?)

That's why I advocate a Truth in Name law. Give bills and such honest, truthful names.
For instance, instead of Stimulus Package, apply Truth in Name and call it something like -
Economic Meltdown Package, or Government Thievery Package. Maybe Robbing the Future Package.

Do you think Congress would pass a Truth in Name law? I didn't think so.
But I'm curious. I'd like to know what you think.

What bills/proposals/packages would you subject to Truth in Name?
Stimulus Package? Fairness Doctrine? Patriot Act? NAFTA?

Tags: bill, congress, legislation, name, package

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

pryder 13 months ago

Truth is a dirty little meaningless word to our leaders in DC.The title they appoint to their legislation is one of the biggest scams in the capital.It's a great idea,but never going to happen.Check out the language of the Omnibus Land Management Act of 2009,it just might scare you to death when you get to the part about spring 2011.How could you possibly be against a "stimulus bill"?,easy, if they call it what it was"We're going to screw you" bill.No matter what the name,just being an informed legislator and actually knowing what is in the bills would be a big improvement.The"Bill of Rights" was the last thing written here that was truth in advertising,and we all know where that is headed, if certain pols get their way in DC.The best way to change(without revolution) is ignore the d or the r behind the name,check candidates records, and compare to their talk,and cast your vote.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Conservative09 (Republican) - 13 months ago

Great idea!

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

Patriot Watch (Independent) - 13 months ago

This is a fun blog. My problem with the bills besides the obvious is the detail. there is none. At all.

I read the first 100 pages of the 2009 Freedon from working act or what ever it was called and wanted to scream and did. It was millions for that and millions for this but could not tell you what except which "government department" It is as wide open as Bidens mouth without the smell.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

C Rich (Independent) - 13 months ago

Show full conversation (2 messages)
Reply to lukas42
Truth in Name Proposal is good, but can we add another one? Like before you sign it you must take an … Show full comment

I like lukas42 and his thoughts on this.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

FREEDOMMM (Republican) - 13 months ago

Noble as it sounds, you are treating a symptom instead of the disease. You are trying to get the liars to rehabilitate themselves voluntarily. This is a tactic to garner votes out of fear. " you mean that YOU voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009? You monster!" The soros backed groups are running ads now about how the GOP voted against jobs and recovery when only a small percentage of the money created actual jobs. Instead, we need to amend a the constitution to enable all 50 states to recall their congressmen. If that was in place, Chris Dodd and Roland Burris would be packing their bags about now.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

countryplowboy 13 months ago

Show full conversation (4 messages)
Reply to politikjoe
The statement was for pure entertainment, satire and humor... i was not serious. It would not be rea … Show full comment

Da*n! I was already looking forward to seeing them sweat when they were asked what each bill was.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

politikjoe 13 months ago

Show full conversation (4 messages)
Reply to countryplowboy
Ohhh boy, while that would be entertaining it wouldn't be effective. 1st, nobody in DC would be able … Show full comment

The statement was for pure entertainment, satire and humor... i was not serious. It would not be realistic. Not yet... ;) Just wait till we have truth implants! hah.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

countryplowboy 13 months ago

Show full conversation (4 messages)
Reply to politikjoe
How about the 'Truth in Congress' law. A law that requires congress never lies... it would mandate t … Show full comment

Ohhh boy, while that would be entertaining it wouldn't be effective. 1st, nobody in DC would be able to sleep from all the buzzing, 2nd, it would take so long to get the truth out of most of them there would be no time to do anything else and finally. Do you really think they would pass this? Besides, they have the right to not incriminate themselves, and telling the truth most certainly would.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

politikjoe 13 months ago

How about the 'Truth in Congress' law. A law that requires congress never lies... it would mandate that they are hooked up to monitors and equipment every time they speak or think and all details are fed live to the web for the world to see. Now that is something I might not mind my tax dollars funding.

Just a thought...

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

countryplowboy 13 months ago

Great idea, but would they pass it? It would probably depend on how much coverage the media gave it and what KIND of coverage it was.

Media doesn't report on it or reports against it and it wouldn't stand a chance. Media repports for it and it would be passed without a single vote against it. Hardly any of our representatives or senators would dare stand against Public Opinion(or more accurately MEDIA Opinion).

And as Scott said, truth is relative in politics. For example a gun ban could be called the "Bill to Make Our Children Safer" by members of the left, however that same bill could be called the "Bill to Make Crime Safer" by members of the right. So maybe the people should decide the names, that way politicians couldn't slant them. And I agree with Lukas, however I would make it a paper test.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

scot 13 months ago

Show full conversation (2 messages)
Reply to scottkirk
While I agree to a degree with your Truth in Name proposal, unfortunately, with new laws it is rare … Show full comment

Hmm... a future lawyer pushing for the ability of the public to sue the government... didn't see that coming! ;)

I think the biggest issue is the fact that 'truth' is relative, especially in politics.

The issue would come down to 'who' can and 'when' can 'X' decide that which is and is not the 'truth,' and is that decision finite and eternal, or can truth change over time? What validates the acceptance as a 'truth?'

Such a proposal would open a big can of worms for sure.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

scot 13 months ago

Show full conversation (2 messages)
Reply to hepsy
Haha! Love it! The suggestion to not allow naming of bills is, I think, a perfect Truth in Name law. … Show full comment

You may have written the post in jest, however I could see congress passing such a law, if for nothing more than a publicity stunt to appear more transparent and what not.

So.. would they and could they do it... absolutely. Would it matter in the end... no.

In politics, the truth is always relative.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

hepsy 13 months ago

Haha! Love it! The suggestion to not allow naming of bills is, I think, a perfect Truth in Name law.

How effective do you think it may be, for citizens to read the bills, but their representatives continue to vote without reading or hearing the voice of constituents? Of course the desired outcome would be a vote out of office. Do enough citizens care about what their representatives do, to vote them out?

I wrote this is jest, so I am happy to see your added thoughts! Can you imagine Congress passing something like Truth in Name? I don't think so!

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

scottkirk (Libertarian) - 13 months ago

While I agree to a degree with your Truth in Name proposal, unfortunately, with new laws it is rare that even Congress can accurately describe what the bill is or what its effects will be. Your descriptions of the Stimulus Package are not necessarily any more accurate than Stimulus Package... it is merely your perspective on how the bill will effect taxpayers and their posterity. The left wing will of course argue that while yes, it is costing a lot right now, if we don't stimulate the economy a depression could be much worse for us and future generations. Unless they or you have a crystal ball it is impossible to determine what the truth really is (for the most part). However, the introducer and sponsor of the bill generally has the ability to name the bill what they wish, and of course they consult with their PR staffers as to what title will make it most well recieved. I think some names are deceptive and that should not be allowed, however, I don't think that Stimulus Package is that at that level of deceptiveness. Pumping a lot of taxpayer dollars into the economy will no doubt stimulate the economy.... Whether it will work or not and what its reprocussions will be are however debateable.

NAFTA is what it is called... although perhaps not as pure as the name would lead you to believe. Patriot Act is somewhat deceptive, but that also is arguable. Perhaps anti-terrorism act would be more accurate, but those who are against terrorists may also be accurately called patriots, so its not quite as deceptive as you'd think.

Maybe the better solution is to not allow naming of bills, but merely give them a number. But then of course, it would be left to the media and public to dubb them... and that then subjects you even further to media owner views.

The best solution to the whole mess is encourage all citizens to educate themselves by reading the bill themselves and learning how to understand what the reprocussions and effects will be. Then, they can publicly ridicule those who wrongly introduced and innacurately named the bill. Of course, I also realize that this is an idealistic view, but if the people don't care enough to read the bill their elector is passing then they shouldn't complain they were misled. (Just as if you don't read the fine print of your contracts, you shouldn't be able to claim you didn't know, even if you're uneducated.)

On that note, and under that theory maybe it should be up to the Supreme Court to render unconstitutional any bill with a title that is clearly deceptive to the public. Compare that to a contract which says "Sale of House" on the top and in the fine print what is described is a contract to lease the house for a week. Surely the person who pays $200,000 for what they thought was title to a house will be upset when they find out they were merely renting it for a week. Should they have read it, or just relied on the title? Sometimes a contract that unfair and deceptive is found to be voidable, as stupid as the person may be for not reading the contract, or at least hiring someone to advise them.

If your Truth in Name Act would permit the public the right to sue the U.S. Congress and render unconstitutional deceptively named bills, then I would support it on that theory of fairness to the majority of uneducated taxpayers and citizens.

Thoughts, comments?

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

lukas42 (Republican) - 13 months ago

Truth in Name Proposal is good, but can we add another one? Like before you sign it you must take an on-line test regarding the Bill. If they fail the knowledge test they are barred from voting until they have read the Bill. This may not work as I have wondered if these useful idiots can read at all. They get to DC and forget where they are from and how to read and a whole lot of other things. I too have lived in DC and there is nothing wrong with the city so it must be in the hallowed halls.

Sorry

or Register to add your comment.
It will take only a few seconds, we promise!

1 - 15 / 15