wrong, not intentionally. Who does opinion pieces for CNN and he's often a Trump attack dog. You know, he'll just attack Trump for anything and Republicans. And CNN and all the fake news had a little trouble yesterday because their fake news was that the GOP doesn't like veterans and vetoed or didn't vote for a bill to protect them and their health from the so-called burn pits danger. And of course because Jon Stewart was saying that the GOP voted against something that they had recently voted for, it looked like it was all political and they were painting the GOP as a bunch of political panderers who didn't really care about veterans.

What do you think the real story was? The real story of course was that the Democrats put a whole bunch of pork, like 400 billion or some gigantic number, I don't know what it was, some big number of pork in the bill. And the Republicans said I don't care how good the bill is, you can't do that. Yeah, it was a poison pill. So do you think that Dean Obeidallah, who is there, I would say he's among their lowest level attack dogs, and by lowest level I mean I feel like he gets the assignment that you can't win unless you just lie. Like you can't make your case unless you're willing to stretch or lie or omit, you know, leave out context is the only way you can get it done. So apparently there are some people who do opinion pieces for CNN who are consistently willing to, let's say, test the outer boundaries of fake news. But Dean completely leaves out the context. That's the only context that matters, which is the Republicans didn't like all the pork in the bill.

Am I a fact jack? I'm right about that, right? Am I correct? The only thing the Republicans didn't like was the extra stuff that got added on as a dirty trick basically. So if you don't mention that you have so little respect for your readers, so little respect. And in fact Dean Obeidallah characterized the GOP's action as, quote, "the GOP is trying to score political points by delaying this vital piece of legislation." Is that what they're doing? They're trying to score political points by making themselves look bad but stopping pork? It looks like it's exactly the opposite of that. What this looks like is that politicians put their own benefit lower than the country's. Now it's hard to imagine anybody would do that. So I'm not sure that we could read their minds and conclude that they were just operating out of principle. But it looks like it. It looks like it. Again, I can't read their minds. But if you're a Republican, would you want to turn down something that was a veteran health bill? What Republican thinks it's good to vote against a veteran health bill even if there's a reason that's technical, has to do with the pork? That never looks good. That never looks good. But a lot of Republicans did it apparently, or are going to do it or whatever. I did it.

So are we mad at Republicans for standing on principle against their own self-interest? Because that kind of looks like what happened. I feel that they were not exactly pursuing their own self-interest. Good. Because here's what would look good for the politician. I voted for that bill because I like veterans. By the time you got campaigning for re-election you could just say that and people would believe it. I'm one of the few Republicans who voted for helping veterans. Nobody's going to look into that pork part of the bill.

Okay, yeah, go read the bill, somebody says. So I floated the idea that every bill should have a list of ingredients so you can see what's in the bill, good and bad. Like the bad might raise taxes on some people. The good might, I don't know, somebody to score that, the OMB or something. But the good would be here are the things we want to accomplish and then here's the price. The price is this might cost more, this might cause inflation, this might raise that. Just list the ingredients, the good stuff and the bad stuff. And then somebody else mentioned that there should be a requirement for a one-page executive summary. I like it. A requirement for a one-page executive summary. Now you might need a paragraph or two for each part of the bill and there might be lots of them. So maybe really it's more like a paragraph for each component or something like that. But it needs to be readable by the public. And I would say that if the average voter can't understand the bill then it should not be voted on. In fact I'd love to see each bill be scored for, let's say, clarity. Scored for clarity. Give some independent group to say, all right, we talked about this bill with a group of volunteers and they couldn't understand it, so we score this you cannot vote on this. I think the Congress should be prevented from voting on anything the public doesn't und