Reading before voting would seem to be non-partisan

****Giving Congress and voters a chance to read final bills before votes are taken would seem to be unexceptionable...except for Democrats. Trompe l'oeil and sleight-of-hand are at stake.****
http://tinyurl.com/ydvj8j5
Congress Needs a 72-Hour Waiting Period Voters want enough time to debate bills. Nancy Pelosi doesn't. By JOHN FUND
...survey conducted last month found 95% agreeing that members of Congress shouldn't vote on any bill they haven't read in full....the "72-hour resolution," which would require all non-emergency legislation to be posted online, in final form, for at least 72 hours prior to a floor vote...Although Barack Obama campaigned last year for transparency and openness in government,...But the notion of a 72-hour waiting period is anathema to Democrats who fear that they are running out of time to pass a sweeping health-care bill...Wednesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted 12 to 11 to reject a proposal to require a 72-hour waiting period and a full scoring of the bill by the Congressional Budget Office before the committee casts any final vote....health care is one of many issues that's simply too important to be rushed through....Haste can make for more than waste and lead to populist outrage that often takes on a life of its own. ...Sen. Kent Conrad, (D., N.D.) who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, claims that go-slow proposals wouldn't make any difference because only 5% of Americans will be able to understand the legalese in bills...."One of the reasons voters are so upset today is that they get the sense they aren't being trusted to make their own judgment about what goes on in Washington."