RE: [dvd-discuss] Going on the offense.

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

And require a POSITIVE review and revision rather than "Ladies and 
Gentlemen, On renewal of law 24324553560874 push your buzzers..OK that's 
387 for in the House...senators, you have heard the vote in the house. Now 
push your buzzers...99 for...NEXT...."




Richard Hartman <hartman@onetouch.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
09/11/01 09:01 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     "'dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu'" <dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: [dvd-discuss] Going on the offense.




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jim Bauer [mailto:jfbauer@home.com]
...
> BTW, why is is that all legistators think they need to pass lots of
> new laws?  You would think that after 200+ years we would have all the
> laws any society could possibly need. 

In the words of P.J. O'Rourke: When can we say "stick a fork in it, it's
done"

>Perhaps their pay should be
> inversely proportional to the number of laws they pass?
> e.g. basepay-(5000*n), where n is the number of laws passed.  And yes
> it could go negative.

I think there's a better way to hamstring congress.  Sunset
clauses on EVERY law.  If they think the law is worth keeping,
they have to vote it in again every decade.  See how quickly
the pissant laws fall by the wayside ...


-- 
-Richard M. Hartman
hartman@onetouch.com

186,000 mi./sec ... not just a good idea, it's the LAW!