Letters: Discuss Legislation a Little at a Time

Discuss Legislation A Little at a Time
Editor, Times-Dispatch: A 28th Amendment should read: Congress shall enact no law having more words than the main body of the Constitution.

That comes to about 4,400 words, or about six printed pages. Imagine a law, written elegantly enough that not only could the average citizen understand it -- every congressman would even have time to read it.

This a major problem underlying the brouhaha over many congressional bills. Does anyone really understand the health care proposal? Or, what about the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill? Some 300 pages were added at the last minute. Our representatives thought themselves ready to vote on it without having had a chance to read it!

Professionals generally break large problems down to smaller, manageable parts. That reduces the risk of unintended consequences, the things economists call negative externalities and computer programmers call bugs. Manufacturers know the more parts in a product, the more frequently it fails.

Think how much farther along desirable modifications to health care would be if lawmakers had addressed, for example, insurance transferability with existing conditions covered, put it in place, and then gone on to the next adjustment. Bite-size methodical changes produce understandable results more quickly and without the scare factor of massive reform.

Such a rule would not only add to the government transparency we've been promised, but what if bills simply had no room for irrelevant porcine inclusions?

Alan McCrea.
Midlothian.

It has been ruled unconstitutional to mix religion and government in the U.S. So religions' basic beliefs such as ethics, morality, and caring for others have been removed from our schools and other public venues.

Is it possible that this separation of church and state may have had anything to do with the demise of the ethics, morality, manners, and behavior of our politicians and citizens over the past 30 or so years ?

And might it be unconstitutional for our federal government to legislate charity and caring for the less fortunate and poor, since these are tenets of most major religions?

Martin Shorter.
Midlothian.

As your editorial states, the scripture lesson the Obamas heard was about the rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to inherit eternal life. Jesus'answer was to "sell what you own and give the money to the poor." Even though your editorial identifies this as "the" story, it seems that many people have not grasped the meaning of this passage.

Jesus taught about our use of money more than any other single issue. It would seem that those who "get the message" would support efforts to help those in need. Rather, all I hear from candidates and elected officials is that "we will not raise taxes." No matter what the issue, it all seems to come down to self-interest, with no concern for the common good.

Hopefully all churches will continue to challenge this near-sighted selfishness.

Judith Bailey.
Henrico.

I'm not a baseball fan, but I have to say that the team names chosen as finalists make Richmond sound like a bunch of idiots.

Also, I would like to know if white people are getting as tired of the NAACP as I am. What in the world does "hambone" have to do with being a racist? It's no wonder there is so much unrest in the world.

As long as we have groups like the NAACP that want to cry "racism" on every other word, the world will always be in turmoil. Get a grip, people! Why don't you try getting along for a change?

Kathy Smith.
Disputanta.