I would think that this is more common, and they only got caught because it was so egregious this time. Someone should take plagiarism detection software and turn it on the congressional record. Then we'll know for sure.
Cynical, but likely true. But we shouldn't just throw out everything that's in the congressional record.
If we have "spam detection for members of congress", we'd usefully know who's doing the saying, and what was said that was at the behest of lobbyists. If we have way to recognize who's "clean" and who's not, then we can call them out on it and vote accordingly.
What is the incentive for the members of Congress to insert this into the record verbatim? I don't see any way this makes them look better than not saying anything would have. If anything, it makes them look corrupt and incompetent. (Do they get "stuff" from lobbyists for doing this?)
well duh...these things happen all the time. Just look at the guy who wrote the anti-net neutrality bill to control the internet, you know...John McCain? The guy who said he needed help just to check his email.
s/Genentech/every company and moneyed interest group ever/;
The health care bill was so long that none of the lawmakers who voted on it had time to read it all. Do the math. This congress is one of the most corrupt in quite some time.
Correlating long bill length with corruption is a fallacy. None of the lawmakers read the whole bill in its technical legal form because it would be an exercise in futility - for virtually any bill, good or bad. It's the nature of our legal system (or any modern, complex legal system) that amending the law (especially in large cases like health care where there is a great deal of law already on the books and about few dozen loosely-related issues are being addressed in one go) that the resulting legal language is going to be confusing except to lawyers reading it very closely. For example, a great deal of the legislation refers to minor changes to existing laws, and hence would require reading those laws as well to read the bill comprehensively.
It's sort of like complaining that a program can't be good because the developers never bothered to fully read the binary produced by the compiler.
Which is not to say that all legislators don't understand the bill. This is what staffers are for - carefully drafting and reviewing legislation and imparting the meaning of it to their bosses.
Incidentally, there is at least one draft of the bill in plain-English form, the Senate Finance Committee bill. The Finance Committee, by tradition, drafts all legislation in legible English, with all members presumably reading the full draft, before handing it off to staffers to translate into legalese.
You could argue that all Congressional committees should follow a similar practice, although it's worth noting that in this case the process didn't do much to improve the bill - the Finance Committee version is generally regarded as the least-effective and industry-friendly version of the bill Congress has considered. You can, in fact, "do the math" on this by looking at the projected coverage rates under each plan.
The claim that this is the most corrupt congress in some time, while subjective, seems counterintuitive. This Congress is likely to pass finance reform within the next few months, despite that sector making massive contributions to both parties. Additionally, while insurance and pharma have had undue influence over the health care debate, their power is significantly less so than it was during the Medicare Part D legislation passed only a few years ago, in which they successfully got Congress to restrict the government from negotiating on drug prices. While I have many complaints about the honesty, integrity, and effectiveness of the current Congress, I would rank them as significantly better (less bad) than every Bush Congress.
Of course, this kind of thing only happens because the government is insufficiently powerful. Obviously, if we were to make the feds responsible for trillions of dollars worth of healthcare spending, Genentech's lobbyists would respectfully decline to meddle in the process. It's just another illustration of the dangers of deregulation and free markets.
This looks like an example of poor staff work on the part of Congressional staff.
Not that I'm forgiving of any of it. The Congressional Record has long been a swamp of total crap. Stuff appears there that was never spoken -- a nice tactic is to vote against a bill, then insert language in the CR saying how you support the bill's goals. When campaign time rolls around, you can either take credit for the vote or run the blurbs from the CR depending on how the electorate is feeling.
I won't get political, but I will note that the approval ratings of Congress has continually gotten worse and worse over the last ten or twenty years. I can't help but think this is tied to the fact that there's not as much turnover in Congress as there used to be (due to gerrymandering) Incumbents win their re-election bids something like 80% of the time. I guess if you keep seeing the same talking heads saying the same thing (or worse, drifting with the wind) then I'm sure it has to wear on you after a while.
13 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 38.4 ms ] threadIf we have "spam detection for members of congress", we'd usefully know who's doing the saying, and what was said that was at the behest of lobbyists. If we have way to recognize who's "clean" and who's not, then we can call them out on it and vote accordingly.
Or else how do we improve the situation?
Asked about the Congressional statements, a lobbyist close to Genentech said: "This happens all the time. There was nothing nefarious about it."
Not sure the second statement necessarily follows the first..
s/Genentech/every company and moneyed interest group ever/;
The health care bill was so long that none of the lawmakers who voted on it had time to read it all. Do the math. This congress is one of the most corrupt in quite some time.
It's sort of like complaining that a program can't be good because the developers never bothered to fully read the binary produced by the compiler.
Which is not to say that all legislators don't understand the bill. This is what staffers are for - carefully drafting and reviewing legislation and imparting the meaning of it to their bosses.
Incidentally, there is at least one draft of the bill in plain-English form, the Senate Finance Committee bill. The Finance Committee, by tradition, drafts all legislation in legible English, with all members presumably reading the full draft, before handing it off to staffers to translate into legalese.
You could argue that all Congressional committees should follow a similar practice, although it's worth noting that in this case the process didn't do much to improve the bill - the Finance Committee version is generally regarded as the least-effective and industry-friendly version of the bill Congress has considered. You can, in fact, "do the math" on this by looking at the projected coverage rates under each plan.
The claim that this is the most corrupt congress in some time, while subjective, seems counterintuitive. This Congress is likely to pass finance reform within the next few months, despite that sector making massive contributions to both parties. Additionally, while insurance and pharma have had undue influence over the health care debate, their power is significantly less so than it was during the Medicare Part D legislation passed only a few years ago, in which they successfully got Congress to restrict the government from negotiating on drug prices. While I have many complaints about the honesty, integrity, and effectiveness of the current Congress, I would rank them as significantly better (less bad) than every Bush Congress.
Not that I'm forgiving of any of it. The Congressional Record has long been a swamp of total crap. Stuff appears there that was never spoken -- a nice tactic is to vote against a bill, then insert language in the CR saying how you support the bill's goals. When campaign time rolls around, you can either take credit for the vote or run the blurbs from the CR depending on how the electorate is feeling.
I won't get political, but I will note that the approval ratings of Congress has continually gotten worse and worse over the last ten or twenty years. I can't help but think this is tied to the fact that there's not as much turnover in Congress as there used to be (due to gerrymandering) Incumbents win their re-election bids something like 80% of the time. I guess if you keep seeing the same talking heads saying the same thing (or worse, drifting with the wind) then I'm sure it has to wear on you after a while.
EDIT: Looking at Gallup, it appears that the freefall has been most pronounced over the last 8 years, not 20. http://www.gallup.com/poll/123491/Approval-Congress-Falls-21...