Congress is dealing with literacy issues. Not students’ literacy, though. Their own.

Republicans in the Senate Finance Committee have proposed posting the full language of health care legislation – with a cost estimate – online for 72 hours before the committee votes. This would, in theory, allow senators some time to actually read the bill for a nice change of pace.

Politico reports that the committee rejected the proposal 11-12. It was mostly a party-line vote, but one Democrat, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas, had the sense to abandon her reading-impaired colleagues. Even Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), she of the I-voted-for-the-stimulus fame, stuck with the Republicans this time. (And no, that doesn’t make up for her stimulus vote. If she’s seeking redemption, her quest will not be a brief one.)

Were the Republicans engaging in political grandstanding here, or actually trying to do the right thing? Or does that question even matter?

More important is the question of why the Democrats decided against allowing the 72 hours of reading time–not only for themselves, but for the public.

The Democrats did pass an amendment that “a cost estimate and a plain-English explanation of the bill be posted online.” So a summary is fine, but why bother reading that tedious whole thing?

To quote Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), the man who was almost president, “Let’s be honest about it. Most people don’t read the legislative language.”

Well, at least he’s honest about his dereliction of duty. That makes it all better, doesn’t it?

Whether he’s talking about his fellow senators or the citizens they serve, it still boils down to dereliction of duty. What happened to open and transparent government?

More from the Politico article: “Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), arguing against delaying a vote on the health care bill until legislative language can be drafted, said that only 5 percent of Americans would be able to understand the legalese, anyway.”

If that’s true, then one of two things is probably also true: Either 95 percent of the population is stupid, or whoever is writing the bill is overcomplicating matters to an absurd degree.

I’ve read the Constitution. Despite being over 200 years old, it’s not a challenging read. It’s very clear and easy to understand. And that document frames our whole government. What’s the problem here?

The New York Post has even better quotes.

“I don’t expect to actually read the legislative language because . . . the legislative language is among the more confusing things I’ve ever read in my life,” Sen. Thomas Carper (D-Del.) said.

Wonderful. Delaware folks, it looks like your man got in over his head. You need to find someone who can actually do the job.

Just in case you had doubts: “I think if people had the chance to read that, they’ll say you know maybe it doesn’t make much sense for either the legislators or me to read that kind of arcane language,” Carper said. “It’s just hard to decipher what it really means.”

If the legislators aren’t reading the bills, then who’s writing them? Where does this indecipherable legalese come from? Congressional elves? Gnomes? Unicorns?

It’s bad enough when they don’t read a bill and quietly hope that no one noticed. But this is pretty brazen. However, does it still qualify as arrogance when you confess you’re not smart enough to understand the whole bill–that you need it boiled down to a simple summary?

The Post quotes President Obama as saying, “Reforming our health-insurance system will be a critical step in rebuilding economy.” [sic]

Will any sort of health-insurance reform do? If it is reform, is it automatically good reform? Or should we trust that Congress and its special helpers know what they’re doing?