Open Enrollment | Subscribe to Printing Impressions HERE
Connect
Follow us on
Advertisement
 

Constitutional Grandstand Could Cost Taxpayers

January 14, 2011
9
WASHINGTON, DC—Perhaps members of Congress could have the Constitution tattooed on their arms and chest for future reference. That would be cheaper for the taxpayers than a GOP requirement for future bills, according to a finding reported by a blogger for The Hill.

The Republican House rule requires new legislation introduced to cite constitutional language that authorizes it. But one Democratic Congresswoman was compelled to fend off the slight, which essentially accuses her party of exceeding its constitutional authority during the last Congress, according to the blog. Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL) pointed out that these citations would set American taxpayers back $575,000 in Congressional Record printing costs, The Hill reported.

Superfluous spending would seem to fly in the face of the spending-conscious Republican agenda, though the spirit behind the rule further emboldens the political polarization. But who would argue that increased printing is a bad thing?
 
9

COMMENTS

Click here to leave a comment...
Comment *
Most Recent Comments:
Tony Grant - Posted on January 27, 2011
If this rule had been in place last year (111th Congress) we wouldn't be fighting now over Obamacare. How much money would that have saved us?
Charles Utts - Posted on January 14, 2011
Too often our political representatives are wrapped up in the Presidential ass kissing or special interest honorarium ---Bribes to actually look out for what's going to benefit the people they are supposed to be serving. Rather than demanding more fees for hazardous materials work with the industries that you have a problem with and help develop solutions. Identify what is the safest products and get rid of the fee's that burden businesses. Rather than a medical mandate that is doing nothing more than costing our employees more money and pushing them to a lower level insurance policy, work to create a healthcare system that can compete across the country, with financial limits on judgements from eager attorney's Give small business owners the ability to fight back against false lawsuits and make the loser of the case pay for both legal fees. Lastly, don't punish businesses with the job of being immigration enforcement , secure borders, e-verification, don't give out driver's licenses to individuals with out a birth certificate, social security card or other form of verifiable id. Many states require nothing to let an illegal drive and then crack down on the businesses for hiring a person with a matching id & social security card. Oregon, and Washington don't require proof, but will cry about those dirty businesses that hire illegals! That's all I have for now! Power to the Printer's! Charles Utts
Jim McFarland - Posted on January 14, 2011
Simply adding a few paragraphs to the Congressional Record that already is being printed results in $575K in additional costs? Sounds ridiculous to me. Sounds like the Congresswoman is playing fast and loose with the facts in her effort to score a political point. How in the world did she arrive at that particular number? Who wouldn't take the existing contract + $575K to add a few paragraphs? What nonsense. When will these politicians stop insulting us? No wonder there's so much anger out there.
J. Johnson - Posted on January 14, 2011
Constitutional Grandstand... Why would an industry magazine such as yours decide to take a bias political stance with this headline. I would pay twice the "superfluous" price to hold Congress accountable for their spending decisions.
Bob Forbes - Posted on January 14, 2011
It appears to me that the Congresswoman is worried that somebody in Congress might pay attention to the Constitution if occasionally reminded that we still have one. But in any case, I do not need political commentary from Printing Impressions, especially ignorant political commentary. What exactly is "the spirit behind the rule further emboldens the political polarization" supposed to mean?
D. Stokes - Posted on January 14, 2011
But what are the costs associated with all the (mostly) unconstitutional pork that has been passed time and again? If congress would have stayed within its constitutional bounds during the last fifty years our government today - and its associated spending - would be a fraction of the size.
Steve Counts - Posted on January 14, 2011
Regarding requiring congress to cite constitutionality of legislation, yes this is a good thing. The small amount of cost comparatively speaking spent to require this is peanuts to be sure any legislation is considered constitutional. Why waste time and force something through the courts that will cost even more if the bill will not pass constitutional muster. The last congress may well go down as the worst in history for its over reach of not only what the people want but what is indeed constitutional.
Roger Linde - Posted on January 14, 2011
What a joke! Why all of a sudden is Congress concerned about spending $575,000, and why shouldn't bills be tied to the Constitution?
Constitution Lover - Posted on January 14, 2011
No one who reads this would complain about more printing. But the real value in this rule is that you must show where your law is constitutionally legal. Thank you new leadership!!!!
Click here to view archived comments...
Archived Comments:
Tony Grant - Posted on January 27, 2011
If this rule had been in place last year (111th Congress) we wouldn't be fighting now over Obamacare. How much money would that have saved us?
Charles Utts - Posted on January 14, 2011
Too often our political representatives are wrapped up in the Presidential ass kissing or special interest honorarium ---Bribes to actually look out for what's going to benefit the people they are supposed to be serving. Rather than demanding more fees for hazardous materials work with the industries that you have a problem with and help develop solutions. Identify what is the safest products and get rid of the fee's that burden businesses. Rather than a medical mandate that is doing nothing more than costing our employees more money and pushing them to a lower level insurance policy, work to create a healthcare system that can compete across the country, with financial limits on judgements from eager attorney's Give small business owners the ability to fight back against false lawsuits and make the loser of the case pay for both legal fees. Lastly, don't punish businesses with the job of being immigration enforcement , secure borders, e-verification, don't give out driver's licenses to individuals with out a birth certificate, social security card or other form of verifiable id. Many states require nothing to let an illegal drive and then crack down on the businesses for hiring a person with a matching id & social security card. Oregon, and Washington don't require proof, but will cry about those dirty businesses that hire illegals! That's all I have for now! Power to the Printer's! Charles Utts
Jim McFarland - Posted on January 14, 2011
Simply adding a few paragraphs to the Congressional Record that already is being printed results in $575K in additional costs? Sounds ridiculous to me. Sounds like the Congresswoman is playing fast and loose with the facts in her effort to score a political point. How in the world did she arrive at that particular number? Who wouldn't take the existing contract + $575K to add a few paragraphs? What nonsense. When will these politicians stop insulting us? No wonder there's so much anger out there.
J. Johnson - Posted on January 14, 2011
Constitutional Grandstand... Why would an industry magazine such as yours decide to take a bias political stance with this headline. I would pay twice the "superfluous" price to hold Congress accountable for their spending decisions.
Bob Forbes - Posted on January 14, 2011
It appears to me that the Congresswoman is worried that somebody in Congress might pay attention to the Constitution if occasionally reminded that we still have one. But in any case, I do not need political commentary from Printing Impressions, especially ignorant political commentary. What exactly is "the spirit behind the rule further emboldens the political polarization" supposed to mean?
D. Stokes - Posted on January 14, 2011
But what are the costs associated with all the (mostly) unconstitutional pork that has been passed time and again? If congress would have stayed within its constitutional bounds during the last fifty years our government today - and its associated spending - would be a fraction of the size.
Steve Counts - Posted on January 14, 2011
Regarding requiring congress to cite constitutionality of legislation, yes this is a good thing. The small amount of cost comparatively speaking spent to require this is peanuts to be sure any legislation is considered constitutional. Why waste time and force something through the courts that will cost even more if the bill will not pass constitutional muster. The last congress may well go down as the worst in history for its over reach of not only what the people want but what is indeed constitutional.
Roger Linde - Posted on January 14, 2011
What a joke! Why all of a sudden is Congress concerned about spending $575,000, and why shouldn't bills be tied to the Constitution?
Constitution Lover - Posted on January 14, 2011
No one who reads this would complain about more printing. But the real value in this rule is that you must show where your law is constitutionally legal. Thank you new leadership!!!!