I can't stand MTG, but the BBB is 5593 pages long, and you can be damn sure Trump himself didn't get past page one because he doesn't like to read. And if he can support it so strongly despite having not read it, why must others? You could also be damn sure that nobody else in Congress has read the entire bill cover to cover either. Yet, Trump and all his allies support it anyway. So, any humorous asides cut both ways equally.
Personally, if you were going to impute an obligation to read the bill to either side, you would think that those advocating the bill be passed have the obligation to have read the whole thing. Opponents could oppose the bill simply because it's too large and unmanageable to But it's not really a reasonable requirement. Legislation like this doesn't read coherently start to finish. It contains all sorts of cross-references, inter-lineated edits on various pages located in other sections of federal law, etc.. I've read bills that are only 5 to 10 pages long that can take many hours to figure out because of all the cross references. So nobody reads it front to back, and if they claim they did, they were just skimming.
The reality is that a bill like this is analyzed in sections, with various legislative summaries put together for each section. So, the members of Congress and their aides read the summaries of the various sections to get the bottom line on various spending items and other provisions.
I mean, we have people on Free Republic staking out all sorts of hardline positions on this bill, and none of us have read it either. That doesn't mean you still can't have a relatively informed opinion if you do some digging.
Oh, I definitely agree. The publicity stunt of planting an enormous stack of paper and mocking the writers of the bill is a well-worn and over-used trope. It’s just that hearing it from a Republican on a Republican bill is novel.
(And her complaint had to do with a limitation on state regulation of AI, not the common objection that the bill will vastly widen the deficit.)