Where’s the transparency?
As the House prepares to vote (most likely) today on the stimulus package, many Americans are questioning why the legislation text was not made available online until late last night when they would only have hours to read the massive document prior to the House vote. Earlier this week, the Sunlight Foundation urged Congress to post the stimulus legislation online for at least 72 hours before it goes to vote.
It is impossible for lawmakers to read, much less fully evaluate, any complex legislation that is hundreds of pages long in the few short hours they often have between the time they first see a bill until final consideration. Worse, citizens may not have access to legislation until after it has been voted on, too late for them to have a meaningful response to legislation that may directly affect their lives.
Online access to legislation for at least 72 hours before consideration should be universally adopted by both chambers of Congress. Legislation of such magnitude needs the scrutiny of both legislators and American citizens.
Although House rules typically require that all conference reports (like the stimulus bill) be made available publicly for 48 hours before going to a vote, the House Rules Committee waived that requirement in order to bring the bill to the floor more quickly.
Do you think Congress should be required to honor a reasonable period of disclosure before voting on legislation?














Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top67 Comments to “Where’s the transparency?”
Lindsey Graham said on FoxNews last night that the bill wasn’t completed and no one would have a chance to read it before voting on it. He did say that there was a high speed railway from LA to Vegas in it. I see on Drudge where citizenship verification was removed so that more illegals could be hired.
Report comment to moderator
One reporter joked yesterday that when the Democrats said the bill would be available 48 hours in advance of the vote, they meant four to eight hours.
Report comment to moderator
I already got an email on the immigration thing. If you can’t take the side of your own citizens when the economy is falling apart, when will you?
Report comment to moderator
“It is impossible for lawmakers to read, much less fully evaluate, any complex legislation that is hundreds of pages long in the few short hours they often have between the time they first see a bill until final consideration.”
Well of course. It’s necessary to pass it quickly in order to NOT have to consider what they are doing.
There’s a reason this congress has the lowest approval rating.
Ever.
Report comment to moderator
Think of this bill as passing a kidney stone and you’ll have the picture perfectly.
You hope it will pass quickly, but unfortunately, this stone is going to scar you permanently, and damage everything from one end to the other.
Report comment to moderator
It worked well for the Patriot Act, so why not now?
Report comment to moderator
Democrats and transparency are an oxymoron. And you have to be a moron to believe it. Please notice this is happening on Friday the 13th. I bet even Freddie Kreuger would be scared!
Report comment to moderator
If you’ve got something to hide in plain sight this is a perfect way to do it. Obviously the democrats don’t want anyone to know what’s in the bill.
What I can’t understand is why the American people put up with this complete lack of ethical behavior from supposedly honorable people we so highly revere and send to do the nation’s business. Considering the lies and deception that surfaces daily/hourly, it just doesn’t make sense. There are any number of “. . . bag” names we’d quickly apply to those behave this way and live in our midst, but we can’t wait to send, and resend, them to Washington to shape our future.
I’m beginning to more seriously consider the idea that inside the beltway is actually some kind of alternate universe penal colony?
Report comment to moderator
By transparency, they just mean those sheets you use for a projector…you know where it wipes off easy, but messy. You also can get high off the pens…
Report comment to moderator
Why are people still calling this a STIMULUS bill?
Those making under $70,000 will receive a whopping $13 per month for one year. How stimulating is that?
Apparently that is the CHANGE we’ve been waiting for. It amounts to less than a roll of quarters. How stimulating!
Report comment to moderator
Just get a hold of Snowe, Collins and the idiot Spector and tell them is is obvious that they are in cahoots with the socialists and their anti Christ to hide this bill from the American public at all costs because it is obviously the largest pork spending bill in US history. Tell them that if this passes they are toast adn they better switch parties It won’t make any difference if you contact lefties since this is their big payday of graft, Ponzi schemes and outright theft that they were promised by the Harry and Nancy. They could care less what you think since you are nothing more than their slaves and should worship them for what ever slop they swill your way – or die.
Report comment to moderator
Promises are made to be broken. Even Frank Lautenberg D-NJ says there’s not time to read it before voting. What’s the rush you ask? Pelosi’s got better things to do.
http://www.drudgereport.com/flashpr.htm
“Rep. John Culberson, TX claims the “stimulus” bill must be urgently voted on today — because Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaving at 6:00 PM for an 8 day trip to Europe!
Calls to Pelosi’s spokesman went unreturned.”
Report comment to moderator
“I’m beginning to more seriously consider the idea that inside the beltway is actually some kind of alternate universe penal colony?”
Now there’s a thought.. I wonder how many of them claimed to have been abducted by aliens?
Report comment to moderator
It is fascinating that the bill was passed before it was released to the public. How transparent!
Report comment to moderator
“Do you think Congress should be required to honor a reasonable period of disclosure before voting on legislation?”
Yes, I do.
However, it should not have to be governed by some great-and-powerful Rules Committee. Rather, members of Congress should simply refuse to vote on a measure they have not read. And they should vote ‘nay’ on legislation when they have not had opportunity to read it. To approve legislation without having read it is irresponsible, regardless of its size.
Oh, wait. I almost forgot this is Congress I am writing about. Must…repress…idealism… … …done.
Report comment to moderator
This is pathetic.
http://cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478
“Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.), President Barack Obama’s successor in the Senate, seemed baffled by the thought of actually reading the entire bill–as did his press secretary.
“I think it’s about 800 pages,” Burris’s press secretary said before laughing lightly. “We’ll do the best we can.”
Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) said that due to the hasty process, he may not have time to read the whole bill.
“I will, as much as I can, get through all the changes that occurred in the conference committee,” says Thune.
“That’s assuming we have time to review it prior to the vote,” he added, “This is a very rushed process, the whole process, starting from the beginning has been very rushed.”
How can you people be so stupid. You’ll vote for something you’ve not even read. Reckless and pathetic. The only responsible vote given the circumstances, (not reading it yet) is NO!!!
Report comment to moderator
And if it was a legal contract–which I suppose it is–and it was their personal fortune on the line–which is should be–would they be in such a hurry?
Of course, in my state, you’ve got 72 hours to change your mind–will anyone bother to read the contract over this three day weekend and change their vote?
Report comment to moderator
I hope you all are hammering your representatives about how utterly irresponsible they are being.
Report comment to moderator
If I could write your representatives, I’d do so…
But I can’t.
Or can I?
Report comment to moderator
(By the way, all of my representatives have so far, voted NO on this porky bill. And yes they have heard from me.)
Report comment to moderator
Lance, I’ve got an idea.
Since our problem is the never ending addition of stuff to a single bill, making them impenetrable and inexplicable, perhaps we need to develop a way to focus the legislation on the problem being addressed.
How about a Constitutional amendment stating no legislation can have more than 100 pages of a specified format including font, point size, spacing, page size and margins. (The format restrictions because after all, we are talking Washington here.)
If a law can’t be coherently explained within that many pages, perhaps the drafters should be replaced by some who’ve actually passed remedial english.
We’ve got a single topic law/rule for ballot initiatives in Colorado—which some love and others hate, so it must be OK—and perhaps we should consider that as well.
Report comment to moderator
“I’m beginning to more seriously consider the idea that inside the beltway is actually some kind of alternate universe penal colony?”
I’m thinking mental health institution.
Report comment to moderator
Rond, I have long advocated a law or Constitutional amendment that says, if effect, that no bill can contain material outside the subject of the primary issue. That is, you can’t attach a highway spending bill to legislation concerning defense.
But nobody listens to me.
Report comment to moderator
Great idea Rond! I was going to say about the same thing- limit tjhe number of pages. I think I would also add a provision that the legislators should have to get 80% on a test of the bill before they could vote on it. That would insure that they read it, or one of their staff does and tells the legislator the main points.
Report comment to moderator
RonD,
Or maybe the “legislation format amendment” should require that all legislation must be drafted on handwritten pages, by an elected legislator, and when translated to printed text, no content changes may occur. That ought to cut out a lot of crap, too.
Of course, that restriction would probably be declared unfair to those without sufficient manual dexterity to pen words to paper. Or some such.
Sorry, my idealism has now been repressed.
Report comment to moderator
You know, it might be enough to require that an elected legislator actually writes legislation him/herself. No drafts by lobbyists, staffers, second-cousins, presidents, or executive-branch underlings.
Urge to despair…fading…
Report comment to moderator
You guys are on to something. How about requiring every Congressman to hand copy every bill that he signs.
That serves the dual purpose of reducing the number of pages and requiring that they read it.
It will also keep them occupied, which means they won’t be able to do as much damage. Since what Congress does is almost always BAD, they less they do, the better off America will be!
My other strategy is to simply turn off the power in Washington. That would instantly save taxpayers trillions!
Report comment to moderator
Couldn’t a group of like minded Congressmen, divide the thing up and read a couple of hundred pages each and alert each other to problems. Just a thought.
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure that’s what they do, KBells, only using staffers. Which is why it’s really the staffers who run the country . . .
Report comment to moderator
I forgot to also say, when the congress votes on something that neither they nor we have read, is that the blind leading the blind?
Report comment to moderator
I’m thinking…. alternate universe penal colony for the criminally insane….
Report comment to moderator
Considering the Republicans played dirty politics the last 8 years, it’s hilarious to watch their bleating now. Ignore the little traitors – they don’t care about saving America.
Report comment to moderator
Heh heh.
I don’t often agree with Xion on politics, but I have to admit that was pretty clever.
Report comment to moderator
One of the things I like about Obama is his pledge to increase transparency. He has pledge to put bills online at least 3 days (I think) before signing them. This will require an overhaul of the info-tech infrastructure, so I’m willing to give him some time to put it in place. But it is disappointing that it’s not there for the most expensive single piece of legislation in our nation’s history.
But I also, like SteveG and Anlir, see a weird irony and even some duplicity in the conservative outrage over this bill’s steam-rolling. All you who defended the Patriot Act so vociferously, how is this any different?
Report comment to moderator
Since everyone ignored me the first time, let me say it more plainly.
Republicans rushed the so-called “Patriot Act” through Congress in a very short time, loading it with all kinds of questionable things and demanding its swift passage in the name of national security. Democrats who argued they should have time actually read it, analyze and understand what was in were quickly called unpatriotic.
Now you’re all whining about “transparency.” I mean really, what’s transparent is your own hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
So, Steve, one stupid move deserves another? Your post sounds a bit childish. Yes, the Rs made a mistake in rushing thru some bills. So why didn’t the Ds set a better example for us to follow? Mr O is digging himself a huge hole that will be next to impossible to get out of if he doesn’t start leading as he said he would. He is proving himself as the same old lying politicians we have had. Where is the change? Where is the hope? All I hear are dire predictions of doom, so let’s do something quick. I thought only Chicken Little hollered about the sky falling.
Report comment to moderator
Peter: No, I’d prefer that this one move more slowly and transparently. But come on, if the same people who thought railroading the Patriot Act through was fine are now complaining about the exact same thing, there’s no real way to see that as anything but rank hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
“Republicans rushed the so-called “Patriot Act” through Congress in a very short time, loading it with all kinds of questionable things and demanding its swift passage in the name of national security.”
I’ve always thought there ought to be a line-item veto on these types of bills.
As I remember it, the conservatives were unhappy about the lack of fiscal responsibility too. This has consistently been a conservative point of contention in the George Bush presidency. He only got his veto pen out on a couple of occasions. And going along with the Democratic pork didn’t get him a thing. They hated him anyway.
Report comment to moderator
Oh sure,MIM, Republicans never put ‘pork’ into bills, even the bills that they write and use their majority status to fast-track. It’s allllll Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
Also, Democrats couldn’t possibly have disagreed strongly with Bush’s policies, or thought he was not a good leader. No, can’t be that. They just, for no particular reason, “hated him.”
Report comment to moderator
#35 SteveG, “Republicans rushed the so-called “Patriot Act” through Congress in a very short time”
What does that have to do with anything? Republican congressmen have been empty suits for the last 8 years. Who’s defending them?
I simply don’t understand the constant use of the moral equivalency argument as though it has any relevance to the actual topic at hand.
It is like say, “I know you are but what am I” on every single thread. How does that add one iota to the conversation?
Report comment to moderator
Xion: Way to miss the point.
I’m addressing people who think one is fine and the other horrible, based purely on which party is responsible. If you’re being consistent, then you’re not one of those I’m talking about.
Report comment to moderator
“Oh sure,MIM, Republicans never put ‘pork’ into bills, even the bills that they write and use their majority status to fast-track. It’s allllll Democrats.”
Did I say that? NO. Don’t put words in my mouth. I’m unhappy with all the pork that Bush and the Republicans pushed through during the last 8 years. What I said was that I remember conservatives being unhappy with that. How you get that I think it’s only Democrats putting pork into bills is beyond me.
As for Bush Derangment Syndrome, I think that a good deal of the problem is irrational. There’s not a good reason for most of it.
Report comment to moderator
Look. What I said in 38 was about how going along with Democrats pork (not Republican pork) still didn’t win Bush any credit with the Democrats. He should have at least vetoed their junk, if not the Republican junk.
I’m unhappy with the Republicans for not growing a spine and opposing all the crap that got passed in the past 8 years. I’m unhappy with the Democrats for outspending any congress ever, in less than 6 months. You can’t tell me that the Republicans outspent them in that amount of time.
Report comment to moderator
Make It Man: The Patriot Act was written by Republicans, and pounded through Congress at light speed by Republicans, over the protests of Democrats who didn’t have time to read it, let alone add pork to it. Any pork that was in it was Republican pork.
This is where I get the impression that you were insinuating only Democrats do it. To describe the earmarks in such Republican-controlled bill as “Democratic pork” suggests that you just assume any and all such pork comes from the Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
How much protest against the Patriot Act was there by Democrats? It passed handily in both houses. I mean, the Senate vote was 98-1! Sure, it’s crap legislation, but the blame goes to whoever voted for it, including all those Democrats.
Report comment to moderator
I didn’t notice anyone defending the Patriot Act. I even see people condemning it, along with Republican pork. So why is it that condemning Democrat pork makes us hypocrites?
I’d go for a one-issue rule, or even constitutional amendment, for Congressional bills. Even riders/earmarks that I like (i.e. pro-life) are a guilty pleasure and it would be more ethical for them to be their own bills.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t talk about the Patriot Act! The Dems — Obama — said there would be transparency. There isn’t transparency. It is no excuse to use the past to justify that you haven’t done what you said you would do. It’s that simple. There has been no change we can believe in.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer (#48):
This is just another of those soap box tu quoques SteveG thinks is sooo revealing. He’ll probably say you’re missing the point, and direct you to post 37 where he does express scathing, vehement disapproval of the current lack of Democratic transparency on this stimulus bill. In that post, he boldly exclaims:
Yeah, not only is his Patriot Act comparison ineffective–the bill had bipartisan support, and Democrats were free to vote ‘Nay.’ But even if the Republicans were guilty of “railroading” the thing through, and if that was so egregious, and if it’s similar to what the Dems are doing now, shouldn’t we expect more than I’d prefer that this one move more slowly and transparently?
It’s his guy in there now; don’t expect him to find anything he really objects to. How goofy that he ever complained about Republican sycophancy.
Report comment to moderator
He promised to post legislation 48 hours before signing or vetoing it. That refers to final versions as passed by House and Senate, which has just happened. He also specified it wouldn’t apply to emergency legislation, which this may count as.
Trying to post it before Congress is finished with it would be pointless, because bills change many times as they go through the process, and the House and Senate versions differ until the end of the conference process. However, you can always find all legislation, including latest versions, amendments, status and other information at the Library of Congress site, http://thomas.loc.gov
So the claims that Democrats have tried to “hide” the bill or keep its contents secret, or even that Obama has reneged on a promise, are vacuous.
Further on the transparency issue, the actual spending of the funds once the bill is enacted will be tracked and available to all at http://www.recovery.gov/
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Democrats voted for the Patriot Act either because they took the President’s word that it included necessary measures and didn’t infringe on civil rights, or because they feared being called traitors, as Republicans were fond of doing at the time.
And my comparison is perfectly effective for illustrate the actual point I’m making with it. There’s proof enough of that in that you and the one from NJ have to pretend I’m making an entirely different point in order to argue against it.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG writes: “Democrats voted for the Patriot Act either because they took the President’s word that it included necessary measures and didn’t infringe on civil rights, or because they feared being called traitors,….”
What kind of representatives are these? The Dems didn’t do their own homework — they didn’t read the bill — or they were scaredy cats? And on top of it, after voting for the bill, then they turned around and blamed Bush because they hadn’t read it!
I give the Republicans credit for not voting for something they didn’t read.
Stop making excuses, says the one from NJ.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s some factual information to cut through SteveG’s disingenuous claims comparing the Patriot act of 2001 and the current “stimulus” bill.
The first version of the Patriot Act was introduced into the House on 2 Oct 01 and consisted of 124 pages. It was a true bipartisan effort authored by Rep Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Rep Conyers (D-MI). After discussion and review by both parties it was passed 10 days later on 12 Oct and sent to the Senate where amendments were offered by Sen Feingold. Those amendments were accepted. At the time of the Patriot Act was being considered, the House was under Republican control and the Senate was under Democrat control.
After review and discussion by both parties, the final version was passed by the House on 24 Oct by a bipartisan vote of 357 to 66. The Democrat Senate passed the bill by a bipartisan vote of 98 to 1, with Sen Feingold being the only one to vote no. The final bill was 342 pages long and was truly a bipartisan effort in both its construction and final authorization.
In no way can the Patriot Act be considered as a bill rammed through the Congress by President Bush and an all powerful Republican Party. While it is true that several normal legislative steps were bypassed because time was of the essence in order to curtail additional terrorist attacks, it is absolutely NOT true that the Patriot Act was a partisan bill forced upon a reluctant Congress.
SteveG’s claim is a blatant falsehood. His only purpose is to try and deflect criticism from the current dictatorial monstrosity of brazen theft now being rammed down the throat of the American people by a swaggering President and a gluttonous Democratic Party. They and their special interests are now drunk on their own power and are intent on gorging themselves with as much money as they can before their orgy comes to an end. The 1000+ page bill even has pages where huge amounts of spending by the millions have been inked in by hand at the last minute. Special DemoRat interests are obviously being given carte blanch access to the candy store: “Here, you want some more money? Just write in whatever you want!”
Bipartisanship is a joke. Transparency is a deceit from the “Liar In Chief” himself, Barak Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Post #51 = Pathetic.
It’s getting to the point where Post by SteveG = Pathetic.
Report comment to moderator
This is incorrect.
Report comment to moderator
JJF: Tough noogies for those Democrats. Their job is to vote on bills. It is incorrect to say the bill was “rammed through” the Congress. They had their votes and they cast them.
Report comment to moderator
It seems we mean different things by “rammed through.” You seem to mean “passed without bipartisan support.”
I mean hurried through with coercive exigency arguments and allowing little to no debate. By my definition, the PATRIOT Act was rammed through, and the stimulus bill was rammed through.
Report comment to moderator
JJF:
Good point. I don’t disagree with your definition, and I was clumsy in 56. When I wrote that it’s incorrect to say the Patriot Act was rammed through, I meant that given the bipartisan support it received (as judged by votes), the claim that one party railroaded the other doesn’t wash.
Ultimately, a congressmen demonstrates his or her support (or lack thereof) for a bill by the vote. That’s what they’re there for; it’s what their job is. It isn’t the sound bites and press conferences that matter, but the votes. “Coercive exigency arguments” don’t get to cast any votes.
Anyway, this horse is code black. It was just another of SteveG’s hypocritical rabbit trails anyway. Pardon the mixed animal metaphor.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: Both bills passed quickly, and in both cases many people didn’t have time to study them before having to make a decision.
The same conservatives who are complaining about that here are, in many cases, the same ones who defended the tactics used to speed the Patriot Act through.
I can understand you find it easier to call me names than to face up to the hypocrisy of conservatives here, but my point stands intact.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: You’re the one who has the facing up to do. I’ve made plenty of posts criticizing conservatives, too.
I wonder how many times we’re gonna be seeing this. The subject of the thread concerns a legitimate criticism of your guy, and after a brief, token acknowledgment of said criticism, you go off on another of your interminable ‘you people are worse’ analyses. The irony, which is apparently lost on you, is that you’re attacking the same kind of fawning attitude you’re guilty of yourself.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah: I guess we’ll be seeing it until you stop misunderstanding it.
See, what I’m saying is ‘you people are worse.’ What I am saying is, if you thought fast-tracked legislation that people don’t have much time to read and analyze was ok when your man did it, you have no leg to stand on to complain when the next man does it. (And of course, if you are not engaged in this kind of inconsistency, then you are not one of the people I’m talking about.)
This does not seem especially complicated to me. Is there some specific part of it that keeps confusing you, or is it the whole concept?
As for my ‘token acknowledgment’ of the criticism, that’s because I don’t think it’s a particularly strong one. Obama’s not broken any promises here — (legislation IS posted online, routinely, and in any case, it’s not something the president controls until it leaves the Capitol and goes to the White House) — and this is just another nitpick.
The bill was passed several days ago. Obama plans to sign it on Tuesday. In the meantime, as with all legislation, it IS available online at the usual site for legislation, http://thomas.loc.gov.
And members of Congress were not given an entirely new, enormous legislation package and told to vote on it in a matter of hours. The legislation has been under debate for more than a month and lawmakers only needed to read the new amendments to it, not the entire package.
If Obama does something I really think is worthy of criticism, I will criticize. So far, he hasn’t. But it’s been less than a month, so I’m sure he will eventually.
Report comment to moderator
Argh!
Amend the second paragraph of #61 to say: What I’m saying is NOT ‘you people are worse.’
I’m off to enroll in remedial typing 101.
Report comment to moderator
The hypocrisy charge ends up being a dead-end game in political debates. It ends up being a cycle of accusation that goes something like this:
R: “No fair! You’re ramming the stimulus bill through!”
D: “I didn’t hear you complaining when you rammed the PATRIOT Act through. Hypocrite!”
R: “Well, you whined about us ramming the PATRIOT Act, but now that it’s your own bill you don’t mind all of a sudden? Hypocrite!”
Et cetera.
As far as I can see, the plain fact of the matter is that many Republican politicians and supporters had no problem with ramming a bill through Congress when it was their own party’s bill. Now that it’s the other party’s bill, they are crying foul. And many Democratic politicians and supporters cried foul when Republicans rammed their bill through Congress, but now that it’s their own party’s bill, they see no problem with it.
I think it’s a function of “group think” more than hypocrisy.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I do understand your point; I even agree with it. I’m saying that I think you’re being selective with your indignation. I took it you weren’t thrilled with how the Patriot Act was handled. You said Republicans “pounded it” through Congress, “railroading” it through while “loading it with all kinds of questionable things.” Regarding this stimulus bill, you did say you would “prefer that this one move more slowly and transparently.”
This stimulus bill, like the Patriot Act, is loaded “with all kinds of questionable things.” Like the Patriot Act, it is being rushed through Congress. With only a few tweaks, the handling of the Patriot Act could be defended the same way you defend the handling of the stimulus bill in 50 and 61. So here’s the payoff pitch: I’m saying it’s disingenuous of you to point to faults in the one case and overlook similar faults in the other, then to compound the hypocrisy by posting here that conservatives are being hypocrites.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I do understand your point; I even agree with it. I’m saying that I think you’re being selective with your indignation. I took it you weren’t thrilled with how the Patriot Act was handled. You said Republicans “pounded it” through Congress, “railroading” it through while “loading it with all kinds of questionable things.” Regarding this stimulus bill, you did say you would “prefer that this one move more slowly and transparently.”
I suppose that’s a fair criticism. I don’t claim to be free of normal human failings.
Report comment to moderator
By the way: The transparency you all are saying Obama hasn’t delivered?
Is right here, just as promised. Posted as soon as it was available.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG: I’m not sure there’s anything praiseworthy about posting a bill after it’s been finalized and only needs the President’s signature. There’s no changing it now.
I wasn’t in on the transparency criticism (I didn’t follow the 1st half of the thread), but I suspect the critics had in mind the kinds of things mentioned in this article.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!