An Idea to Reduce Government BS

[Buckle Up]

Inspired by the following quote in this story,

Under the new law — the Protect America Act — the government can eavesdrop, without a court order, on communications conducted by a person reasonably believed to be outside the United States, even if an American is on one end of the conversation — so long as that American is not the intended focus or target of the surveillance.

as well as many other similarly named bills and laws that are run through the American Congress (e.g., "no child left behind", "operation Iraqi freedom", etc.), I have an idea.

I think that the opposing party, or those opposed to signing the bill, should get to name it.

What do you think of this idea? Feel free to argue the logistics (i.e., when is the name applied? Who gets to vote? Etc.)

[A Turtle Named Mack]

I take it then, that you would be fine with a bill to finance reproductive services for the poor being called the 'Slaughtering Babies Act?'

I know where you are coming from, as the labels of so many acts are designed to make it as difficult as possible for a person to vote against it, since so much reportage will only tel about the title of the bill. But obviously, as my example shows, there would be at least as much mischief under your proposal.

And I am not sure your examples make the point very well. Protect America is about protecting us against plots of various sorts: you can argue that it infringes rights in the process, but it really is about targeting threats to America. And No Child Left Behind really is about trying to bring up failing schools, and not allowing students not doing well to be left behind. I don;t like all the methods of the act, but the name describes the thrust of the intiative as well as any short title could.

[keokuk]

Originally Posted by Buckle Up

as well as many other similarly named bills and laws that are run through the American Congress (e.g., "no child left behind", "operation Iraqi freedom", etc.), I have an idea.

I think that the opposing party, or those opposed to signing the bill, should get to name it.

What do you think of this idea? Feel free to argue the logistics (i.e., when is the name applied? Who gets to vote? Etc.)

I think it would cause many of the same problems that the current system has, only the other way. As hard of a pill as it may be to swallow for bills to have all-positive names like the Patriot Act or No Child Left Behind, I don't think we'd accomplish much more by having a hypothetical President Hillary Clinton's healthcare program labeled the "Communist Tax Hike and Nationalization of America's Doctors Act."

[Buckle Up]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

I take it then, that you would be fine with a bill to finance reproductive services for the poor being called the 'Slaughtering Babies Act?'

I know where you are coming from, as the labels of so many acts are designed to make it as difficult as possible for a person to vote against it, since so much reportage will only tel about the title of the bill. But obviously, as my example shows, there would be at least as much mischief under your proposal.

And I am not sure your examples make the point very well. Protect America is about protecting us against plots of various sorts: you can argue that it infringes rights in the process, but it really is about targeting threats to America. And No Child Left Behind really is about trying to bring up failing schools, and not allowing students not doing well to be left behind. I don;t like all the methods of the act, but the name describes the thrust of the intiative as well as any short title could.

You are right that it wouldn't solve anything, I suppose. Why do these bills have to have names in the first place? Why can't it be something more objective, like how court cases are titled, e.g., Smith v. Jones 1966, or SB 233? Can't we agree on something a little more objective and middle of the road?

For the record I disagree with you on the intent of NCLB but we can put that aside for now.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Originally Posted by Buckle Up

You are right that it wouldn't solve anything, I suppose. Why do these bills have to have names in the first place? Why can't it be something more objective, like how court cases are titled, e.g., Smith v. Jones 1966, or SB 233? Can't we agree on something a little more objective and middle of the road?

For the record I disagree with you on the intent of NCLB but we can put that aside for now.

Of course, for specificity, the HB and SB numbers are used for various purposes, but they really are hard to talk about that way. Lawyers don't identify cases by their civil action numbers or their casebook citations - names are easier to remember. In some ways it would be less propagandistic to name a bill by its sponsors: McCain-Feingold, or McCarran-Ferguson Acts. But with only a few over 500 national legislators, and some of those having redundant names to each other, this too would get confusing.

[keokuk]

Originally Posted by Buckle Up

You are right that it wouldn't solve anything, I suppose. Why do these bills have to have names in the first place? Why can't it be something more objective, like how court cases are titled, e.g., Smith v. Jones 1966, or SB 233? Can't we agree on something a little more objective and middle of the road?

For the record I disagree with you on the intent of NCLB but we can put that aside for now.

Ease of reference. Right now I can mention No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, the immigration bill, the FISA bill, etc., and you pretty much know what I'm talking about. All bills introduced in Congress do have bill numbers, usually in the format of H.R. 1234 for House bills and S. 1234 for Senate bills. However, for the casual follower of politics, it would be extremely difficult to memorize bill numbers when they can be named in a way that makes it more convenient.

I worked for a lobbyist who spent every waking hour on a particular bill for nearly a year and she could never remember the bill number. It just rarely came up in normal conversation. At least twice a month she would call over to my office to double-check if she had the number right. With the number of bills that get introduced into Congress, it's just a lot more convenient to refer to things in shorthand with a nickname than memorizing long reference numbers.

(Incidentally, I don't think that the name of a bill has nearly as much impact on the way a member votes than people think they do. No one voted for the Patriot Act because of the name. They voted for it because it dealt with national security issues right after 9/11 and they were afraid to look generally weak on terror. The same is true of No Child Left Behind. No one said, "But if I vote against it, I'll be voting for leaving children behind!" There are sometimes simplistic political reasons to vote for an unpalatable bill, but the name isn't one of them.)

I'm starting to think it might be a good idea. Unfortunately not as many americans are interested in knowing what direction their country is taking. Too many people don't know more about even the more popular laws than the name.

However,this isn't a true solution, it's only a detour.

[Mad Jay]

Unfortunately, in any democratic system, middle level BS'ers eventually come to power. See, the public has the innate ability to detect and loathe BS. The problems starts when all candidates start BS'ing. In this case, the junta is forced to pick the candidate the BSes the least ( or the candidate who is smart enough to BS just enough to fool most people). The middling-level BS wins by a landslide, and political commentators hail the strategy as "effective". The politician eventually gets voted out, because sooner or later the public gets tired of his/her BS. But, the strategists behind the candidate never get voted out. They build their resume and move to the next candidate, perfecting their BSing technique as they go.

So, Mad Jay's laws of BS in politics.
1) BS is inevitable. You don't have a choice. You have to accept it.
2) The voter has to make an attempt to cut through the politician's BS and get to the heart of the issues. The voter should not be swayed by what the policy is named. THe name of the policy should be irrelevant
3) The voter is going to fail sometimes and get screwed

[Saint James]

Shouldn't this thread be in rantidote or soapbox derby?

[Buckle Up]

Originally Posted by Saint James

Shouldn't this thread be in rantidote or soapbox derby?

Admins may feel free to move it if desired.

I'm not 100 percent serious about this idea, BTW. It's just a thought, and a commentary, really, about how these bills are named. Personally I wish that an official act of government business such as the introduction of a bill, would not itself become a slogan or stump or selling point. But then, as Mad Jay pointed out, who am I kidding if I think BS will ever be removed or even reduced from government (though I certainly do not agree that I have to accept it).