The arrogance of the majority

Steny Hoyer finds cause for mirth in the suggestion that Congress ought to be required to read legislation before voting to impose it upon its subjects:

Steny Hoyer, the No. 2 Democrat in the U.S House of Representatives, provided a valuable window on the mindset of the chamber's leadership Tuesday when he all but admitted that few if any members of Congress would read the healthcare reform bill before voting for it.

"If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews at his regular weekly news conference.

Of course it is not as bad as all that because "... staff and review boards, they read [the bills] in their entirety. They go over it with members, and members read substantial portions of the bill themselves," Hoyer allowed before veering off in another direction.

He was referring to a pledge offered to members of Congress by Let Freedom Ring, where I am a senior fellow, asking them not to vote for any healthcare reform legislation they have not read personally. Hoyer apparently finds the idea that members should read the bills they vote on before they vote humorous, "laughing as he responded to the question," according to the news organization.

"I'm laughing because a) I don't know how long this bill is going to be, but it's going to be a very long bill," he is quoted as saying. Hoyer's audacity in suggesting, laughing as he did—LAUGHING—that a bill to increase the government's control over more than 17 percent of U.S. gross domestic product won't be read by the people who have to vote to approve it because it is too long suggests there are problems with the issue and the process. As Kerri Houston Toloczko, policy director for Conservatives for Patients' Rights said, "If it's too long to read, it's probably too expensive to pass."

Power has gone to his head. That doesn't make him unique among his peers. But the little people wonder how it can even be legal to pass a bill that no one has read. And to leave holes in it to be filled in later. This strikes regular people as un-American.

Next up, Henry Waxman:

"It appears that the Republican Party leadership in the Congress has made a decision that they want to deny President Obama success, which means, in my mind, they are rooting against the country, as well,” the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman told WAMU radio host Diane Rehm on Tuesday morning, promoting his new book, “The Waxman Report.”

Wow. Dissent from the Obama agenda equals anti-Americanism.

Ed Morrissey puts this in perspective:

This is more than just stupid, which it is by the truckload. It’s also dangerous. Making opposition to any politician’s policies or actions a case for treason amounts to an extension of the Louis XIV principle, L’etat, c’est moi, or “I am the state.” It’s also the same idea behind the fuehrerprinzip that allowed Adolf Hitler untrammeled power in the Nazi regime, and any number of other tyrants, great and petty. It is an essential construct of fascism, tyranny, and elitism.

I've come around to the opinion that the majority of the majority is knowingly complicit in converting our economy from capitalism to socialism. The bills that have been passed since January 20th are beyond liberal. Obama's multiple czar appointments, industry takeovers, and firings of watchdogs are consistent with a leader who wants to radically expand government and isn't shy about breaking the rules to do so. Congress keeps passing bills that throw sand in the gears of the economy. Then they say it isn't working and talk about throwing more sand. They can't be this stupid. Their goals for the economy aren't our goals.

*Update: Ari David plans to challenge Waxman. I know exactly zero about him but he can't possibly be any worse.

**And two words I forgot to mention: TERM LIMITS.

Comments welcome.

Most recent posts here.