"The more they have to refer to a 'bill' make it even more ridiculous because a bill never reports out of Congress the way it was read in and legislation almost never becomes law which represents the bills without reconciliation and compromise."
Your comment was directed toward YN, who certainly can't agree with your premise if he is being even slightly intellectually honest.
After all, YN has previously posted that it isn't even necessary to have a bill in congress at this stage of the process. In fact, one doesn't even have to decide between forms of taxation, such as the VAT vs the flat. Totally inconsequential, to hear YN tell it. It isn't even necessary to have a proposal committed to writing and have little details like the rate worked out.
So if it is inevitable that any proposal get modified and compromised during its passage through congress, what could we say about one that isn't even at the stage of discussion and analysis yet?