The significance of the LENGTH of legislation

The length of Congressional bills is inversely correlated with the merit of the legislation and directly ( perhaps exponentially ) correlated with the damage the legislation can do. Why the prolix complexity? Several reasons come to mind:
A) It precludes careful scrutiny by even those voting on it, let alone the public, and so legislation passes that, were its contents known and appreciated, might cause nausea first and then revolt. Anyone voting on a bill should be prepared to answer a pop quiz created by some random program that assesses whether the bill is fully comprehended. This is facetious, of course, because they don't comprehend and don't want to reveal the fact.
B) The complexity is self-serving for three constituencies ( that, in turn, answer to other constituencies.) These are 1) the Lobbyists, who proposed wording and insert earmarks and preferences for their clients. They, in turn, pay off (2) the members of Congress with campaign contributions ( or, as in the case of Senators Dodd and Conrad, more direct "subsidies.") Finally, there is a third group (3) the staffers of the members of Congress who actually draft what is proposed by their members. They have every incentive to insert opaque and convoluted passages that can, later, after they have left government employment and can exploit their experience in the private ( or labor, or NGO, etc.)sector, constitute loopholes that only they know are there and can understand. It's guaranteed ( and valuable ) self-employment. Tax lawyers, especialy, have been mining the complexities of the IRS Code for generations, after moving from brief periods of government employment. It's laughable to discuss possible inequities in pay with the claim often made that these public "servants" could make more in the private sector. First of all, it's no longer true but, more important, their payoff comes many times over after they have left public employment but as a result of it.
The 2000-page Pelosi healthcare bill is a recent example but Christopher Dodd, the Senator from Countrywide, has proposed a remake of the entire financial regulatory in system in preliminary legislation that numbers about 1200 pages, and counting.The stimulus bill was 1100 pages long and was posted only 13 hours before the vote and the cap-and-trade bill, 1200 pages long, was posted only 15 hours before the vote.
C) Another, and more damaging result of the length of legislation is that it is a sign that it is NOT incremental. That is, it promises a reworking of systems of laws that have been in place for years in the absurd presumptive claim that the authors can, at one fell swoop, create something from scratch that is better than something that was built up gradually over time. The funny thing about this legislative characteristic is that it starts off as a "proposed draft" and the only gets longer. Most writers will assert that the first draft is always unnecessarily long and wrong and that continued work will make it shorter, more correct and more comprehensible. Not so for Congress.
The conceit of Speaker Pelosi that she ( and her assoociated conspirators ) can replace the entire healthcare system ab initio with her "wisdom" defies even laughter. There are always things wrong with the current system of anything and healthcare is certainly no exception. A reasonable person ( i.e. not a member of Congress ) would reason that incremental changes would have a better chance of producing improvements on the status quo ante: the changes would be identifiable, comprehensible and targeted at the things known to be wrong. In particular, the absurd claims that expensive new ( and doubtless worse ) programs will be substantially paid for by reducing Waste, Fraud and Abuse (WFA) should assume first place in the order of things to do. Why not START with reducing WFA since no one can hardly object to that? Is it possible that, absent the legislation, the proposers of it would REFRAIN from reducing WFA? It's always the case that a sampling audit will reveal WFA that, extrapolated to the entirety, amounts to significant money. However, identifying a sample does not provide the means to identify the totality, let alone root it out. There will always be some irreducible amount of WFA and, if not, demonstrate the fact by attacking it first.
The conceit of Congress has always been exemplified for me by their self-description as Law MAKERS. Even Moses was only called a Law GIVER.