Jamie
Weinstein
Read Jamie's bio and previous columns
June 30, 2009
President Obama Needs
to End the Democrats’ Sinister War on Reading
We were told again and again by the likes of Shaquille
O’Neal, Claire Huxtable (Phylicia Rashad), and Ed Asner that Reading
is Fundamental. In public service announcements on television and on
the radio, these celebrities conveyed to us the importance of learning
to read. But last week, congressional Democrats told us that those
celebrities were lying. Reading is not as fundamental as we were led to
believe, Democrats said, in actions if not words.
House Democrats, with the support of eight Republicans,
passed a 1,200-plus-page climate-change bill on Friday. As the bill
passed, an eerie silence overcame the country as Americans silently
wondered whether this was the moment The One had prophesied of during
his campaign. You know, that magical moment when “the oceans began to
slow and our planet began to heal.”
Well, if it was that magical moment, most who voted for the
bill didn’t know it. That’s because few congressmen actually had an
opportunity to read the climate-change bill in its entirety before they
cast their vote. Twelve hundred pages long, 300 pages of amendments were
added to the bill less than 24 hours before the vote. This is hardly
sufficient time for members to read and fully understand what the
complicated piece of legislation they were asked to vote on stipulated.
Translation: No, America, reading is not fundamental.
I thought we came to the collective conclusion as a country a
long time ago that it was a good idea for members of Congress to read
major pieces of legislation and important reports on which the
legislation was based before they cast a vote. Barack Obama’s campaign
hammered Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail for her admission that
she had not read the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before
voting to give President George W. Bush the authority to use force
against Saddam Hussein.
That seems like a reasonable position to me, one that should
apply to other major policy decisions other than the decision to go to
war. But now Congress, with the support of President Obama, seems to
think that giving members of Congress time to read legislation before
voting on it is an extravagant request. Why, Mr. President and Speaker
Pelosi, are you launching this cruel war on reading? It’s fundamental,
remember?
This Democratic assault on reading began before last week’s
climate-change vote. In February, Congress passed a 1,100-page stimulus
bill that authorized something like a zillion dollars to be spent to
supposedly jumpstart the economy. That’s an awful lot of money. One
would imagine it would be important for legislatures to pour over the
bill to understand what they were voting on. Not so, said the Democrats
in power.
This isn’t the only war, however, the Obama Administration
may have launched since coming into office. During the presidential
campaign, we heard a lot about the war on science the Bush
Administration was supposedly waging. Both Barack Obama and
then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton promised to end this alleged
war and bring peace to science once elected. Now, there is evidence that
the Obama Administration has launched its own war on science. CBS News
has reported that the director of the Environmental Protection Agency
had put the kibosh on a report that cautioned the administration from
making hasty policy decisions with regards to climate change “based on a
scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the
available data.”
This report was inconvenient for an administration intent on
passing costly climate change legislation and it appears to have been
suppressed by the Obama Administration. This sounds an awful lot like
what Democrats accused President Bush of doing.
What’s going on here? A war on Science? A war on Reading? Is
this the change America voted for?
But back to the climate change bill. It is troubling that the
Democrats’ savage war on reading has prevented legislators from reading
major pieces of legislation in their entirety before they come up for a
vote. But a better question is whether we should be crafting pieces of
legislation that run over 1,000 pages in the first place? During his
second stint as British Prime Minister, the great Winston Churchill was
presented with a mammoth report on housing. When asked whether he had
considered the report, Churchill retorted that “this report by its very
length defends itself against the risk of being read.”
The same goes with these outrageously long pieces of
legislation. Even if the Democrats were not launching a ruthless war
against reading, the fact of the matter is that many congressmen
probably wouldn’t actually read a 1,000-page bill. Congressional
legislation should be streamlined. There is no reason whatsoever that
Congress needs to be considering bills that are as long as the Bible.
While few have had a chance to read the climate change bill
in its entirety, the bill is very likely, in the undistinguished words
of the distinguished House Minority Leader from Ohio, John Boehner, a
“piece of shit.” Let us hope that the Senate acts like the deliberative
body it was crafted to be and rejects the bill, much like it wisely
rejected the prospect of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
And let us hope that President Obama implores his friends in
Congress to end the unenlightened war being waged against reading – if
not for members of Congress, then at least for the children.
© 2009
North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.
Click here to talk to our writers and
editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.
To e-mail feedback
about this column,
click here. If you enjoy this writer's
work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry
it.
This is column #
JW076.
Request permission to publish here. |