Friday, April 2, 2010

Illinois Congressman Reads the Bill, But Not the Constitution (UPDATED)

Phil Hare (D-IL) came right out with it:

Phil Hare claims he read the bill 3 times.

Uh huh. 

Maybe this interview happened on April Fool's day, because if Hare actually read the the bill (3 times) at the rate of one page a minute, 24-7, with no meals, sleep, or bathroom breaks, it would take him 4.75 months. In other words, if he started yesterday, he would be finished on July 23rd, 2010.

If, however, he only read for 12 hours per day, it would take him until December 13, just in time to start his Christmas shopping.

Of course, being a busy Congressman, maybe he only has time to read the bill for 4 hours a day. In that case, it would take him until . . . about August 4, 2012, more than 2 years from now.

Here's the calculation:
The bill is 2700 pages long (approximately).

2700 pages x 3 = 8100 pages.

At a page per minute, reading non-stop, 24/7,

8100 divided by 60 minutes per hour = 135 hours.

135 hours divided by 7 days per week = 19 weeks.

19 weeks divided by 4 weeks per month = 4.75 months
Reading half as fast (12 hours per day): 4.75 x 2 =  9.5 months

Reading at 1/3 of that pace (4 hours per day) 9.5 x 3 = 28.5 months = 2.36 years

It's easy to see why Hare expects his constituents to believe he read the bill, 3 times.

And that expectation certainly lends credence to his claim that he doesn't "worry about the Constitution."

Illinois voters in Springfield, Quincy, Macomb, Monmouth, Decatur, and Davenport, you know what to do. Or, at least your ancestors did, when they elected the Springfield lawyer known as Honest Abe to represent them in Congress.



Thanks to Joe at Jo-Joe Politico for the following. Now Hare does about the Constitution.

This is Hare's take on the opponents of single-payer health care are disagreeable Republican louts. By all means, let us not be "disagreeable." Quietly permit your elected representatives tell you--and your fellow citizens--bald-faced lies. If you notice a big whopper of a lie, and, disagreeably, draw that lie to the representative's attention, give the guy plenty of room to storm out the door. Challenging your representative's view on the Constitutionality of his actions is fine, as long as it is helplessly "agreeable." It's only your Constitution at stake. (And, of course, your Constitution is in good hands--somebody else's hands.)

If, like me, you are still feeling "disagreeable" despite Phil Hare's admonition, you might like to read Who Cares? at Jo-Joe Politico or America's Quiet Anger at Political Junkie Mom.

1 comment:

  1. Did you see his "explanation?" Turns out he did not say what he actually said, he really said what he now says he meant to say which is what he really said, even though we heard him say what he said.