Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How to Tell What a Bill Actually Does
Capitol Confidential ^ | 6/10/2014 | Joseph Lehman

Posted on 06/13/2014 5:53:14 AM PDT by MichCapCon

We might not have the ObamaCare mess if more people judged legislation by what it actually does instead of what its proponents hope it will accomplish.

Think of verbs to truly understand what a bill does. There are specific verbs that describe the precise action of any bill.

The Mackinac Center's short, plain-English bill descriptions (found on the VoteSpotter app and are built around those verbs. A great many descriptions include words like "prohibit," "mandate," "impose," "tax," "require," "restrict," "penalize" and "subsidize."

If those verbs sound negative, it's not because we have a bias against the bills. It's because those verbs simply are the things bills do. A good law to protect citizens from killers does so by "prohibiting" murder. A bad law to "create jobs" won’t hire anyone but it may directly "subsidize" film makers.

ObamaCare's official name is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There are three main things the 2,000-page law actually does:

1) Mandates the purchase of health insurance; 2) Defines what constitutes acceptable insurance coverage and prohibits unacceptable plans; and 3) Subsidizes some people's purchase of health insurance and imposes an array of new taxes, fees and regulations.

ObamaCare might be even better understood if we pretend for a moment that it involves housing instead of insurance, since most people are more familiar with homes than insurance.

ObamaHome would: 1) mandate universal home ownership; 2) define what constitutes an approved home and require demolition of noncompliant homes; and 3) subsidize the new homes of certain people and impose new housing bureaucracies, fees, taxes and regulations.

Political opportunists with ties to home builders would note that not everyone owns a home even after public policies propelled home ownership to historic heights. They would lump together everyone who does not own a home — renters, those living with relatives or friends, those saving for a home, those who just prefer not to own a home, and the truly homeless — and label them all "the unhoused."

The truly unhoused — those with utterly no roof over their heads and no one to help them — would constitute a tiny minority. Wise observers would liken their number to those very few who need health care but can't even obtain it at emergency rooms for some reason. A problem, but not one big enough to remake the entire health care market, for instance.

The president would pledge: "If you like your home, you can keep it." Bulldozers would later demolish millions of houses in front of their gasping owners.

The fine for not buying a home would be renamed a tax. New homes would include mandatory features like wheelchair ramps and electric car plug-ins people may not want or be able to afford. All housing costs would jump.

Those needing a housing subsidy would be funneled to a faulty government website that would render hundreds of thousands temporarily homeless.

But "housing the unhoused" would sound a lot better than "mandate," "prohibit," "subsidize" and "impose," even though those verbs would describe exactly what ObamaHome does.

TOPICS: Government

1 posted on 06/13/2014 5:53:14 AM PDT by MichCapCon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

More often than not it does exactly the opposite but if a democrat proposes it, its a sure bet.

2 posted on 06/13/2014 5:54:36 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MichCapCon

As we all know, the title of bill is always the exact opposite of what it does.

3 posted on 06/13/2014 5:59:20 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum ("The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the government." --Tacitus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
There was a good one passed in the MI senate the other day.

Senate Bill 910: Ban enforcement of new woodstove emissions limits Passed 25 to 12 in the Senate on June 11, 2014, to prohibit Department of Environmental Quality from imposing new state regulations limiting emissions from woodstoves and heaters, or enforcing federal regulations that do this. The bill was introduced as news reports indicate that proposed federal Environmental Protection Agency rules would impose restrictive new limits on wood burning heaters.
4 posted on 06/13/2014 6:02:02 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Look at what the bill is named, especially if it is a Democrat sponsored bill. They more innocuous it seems, the worse it is.

5 posted on 06/13/2014 6:14:02 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (Haven't you lost enough freedoms? Support an end to the WOD now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson